Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757203Ab0GNSPu (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:15:50 -0400 Received: from claw.goop.org ([74.207.240.146]:51528 "EHLO claw.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757007Ab0GNSPs (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:15:48 -0400 Message-ID: <4C3DFED2.5000807@goop.org> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:15:46 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100621 Fedora/3.0.5-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" CC: Linus Torvalds , Peter Palfrader , Avi Kivity , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, stable-review@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Glauber Costa , Zachary Amsden , Marcelo Tosatti , "H.J. Lu" Subject: Re: [patch 134/149] x86, paravirt: Add a global synchronization point for pvclock References: <20100707124731.GJ15122@anguilla.noreply.org> <4C359D5A.1050906@redhat.com> <20100713102350.GW15122@anguilla.noreply.org> <4C3C68C8.4060409@redhat.com> <20100713141902.GB15122@anguilla.noreply.org> <4C3C8CE5.1080705@redhat.com> <20100713162207.GC15122@anguilla.noreply.org> <4C3C9589.4090602@redhat.com> <4C3C96EC.8060901@redhat.com> <4C3C9839.4090404@redhat.com> <20100713172526.GE15122@anguilla.noreply.org> <4C3CAE8F.10900@goop.org> <4C3CE560.5050701@zytor.com> <4C3CFB8B.1090804@goop.org> <4C3DF1BE.2070404@goop.org> <4C3DF447.1000801@zytor.com> <4C3DF519.6030406@goop.org> <4C3DF7AF.7010402@zytor.com> <4C3DFA88.5020007@goop.org> <4C3DFD12.3050700@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <4C3DFD12.3050700@zytor.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 868 Lines: 23 On 07/14/2010 11:08 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Noone has talked about strict ordering between volatiles and > (non-volatile) memory ops in general. I have been talking about > volatile to volatile ordering, and I thought I'd been very clear about that. > OK. > H.J., we're having a debate about the actual semantics of "volatile", > especially "asm volatile" in gcc. In particular, I believe that > volatile operations should not be possible to reorder with regards to > each other, and the kernel depends on that fact. > I think we should consider that deprecated and rely on dependencies and clobbers. J -- 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/