Subject: Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>,
       David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, jeff@garzik.org, paulus@samba.org,
       torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org,
       segher@kernel.crashing.org
In-Reply-To: <1157923513.31071.256.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <17666.11971.416250.857749@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
	 <45028F87.7040603@garzik.org>
	 <20060909.030854.78720744.davem@davemloft.net>
	 <200609101018.06930.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
	 <1157916919.23085.24.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1157923513.31071.256.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:23:13 +0100
Message-Id: <1157926993.23085.29.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 709
Lines: 15

Ar Llu, 2006-09-11 am 07:25 +1000, ysgrifennodd Benjamin Herrenschmidt:
> I'm copying that from a private discussion I had. Please let me know if
> you have comments. This proposal includes some questions too so please
> answer :)

Looks sane and Linus seems to like mmiowb. Only other question: what are
the guarantees of memcpy_to/fromio. Does it access the memory in ordered
fashion or not, does it guarantee only ordering at the end of the copy
or during it ?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/