Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964863AbWJWOHa (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:07:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964870AbWJWOHa (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:07:30 -0400 Received: from iolanthe.rowland.org ([192.131.102.54]:57106 "HELO iolanthe.rowland.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S964863AbWJWOH3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:07:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:07:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@iolanthe.rowland.org To: "Paul E. McKenney" cc: David Howells , Kernel development list Subject: Re: Uses for memory barriers In-Reply-To: <20061023053223.GC17633@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 916 Lines: 24 On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > How about ld_i(A) => ld_j(A)? This would say that both loads corresponded > to the same store. > > How about this instead: "A==>B" means that B sees the value stored by A, > > and "A==B" means that A and B are both loads and they see the value from > > the same store. That way we avoid putting a load on the left side of > > "==>". > > My concern is that "==" might also have connotations of equal values from > distinct stores. Okay, here's another suggestion: ld_i(A) <=> ld_j(A). This avoids connotations of ordering and indicates the symmetry of the relation: both loads return data from the same store. Alan - 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/