> Isn't it possible through some inline assembly trick
> that only a certain variable has to be reloaded?
A volatile cast does that already
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 08:40 -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> > #define reload_var(x) __asm__ __volatile__ (whatever, x)
> >
> > I don't know inline assembly that much, but isn't it possible
> > with that to kind of "fake-touch" the variable, so the compiler
> > must reload it (and only it) to make sure
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 09 August 2007 02:15:33 Andi Kleen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 05:08:44PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
Heiko Carstens wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 03:21:31AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:33:00
On Thursday 09 August 2007 02:15:33 Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 05:08:44PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> > Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > >On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 03:21:31AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > >>From: Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:33:00 +0200
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 05:08:44PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> Heiko Carstens wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 03:21:31AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >>From: Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:33:00 +0200
> >>
> >>>Just saw this while grepping for atomic_reads in a wh
Heiko Carstens wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 02:31:15PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:08:44 -0400
Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Heiko Carstens wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 03:21:31AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: We
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 02:31:15PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:08:44 -0400
> Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 03:21:31AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > >> From: Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> Date:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:08:44 -0400
Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 03:21:31AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:33:00 +0200
> >>
> >>> Just saw this while grepping for at
Heiko Carstens wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 03:21:31AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:33:00 +0200
Just saw this while grepping for atomic_reads in a while loops.
Maybe we should re-add the volatile to atomic_t. Not sure.
I think
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 03:21:31AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:33:00 +0200
>
> > Just saw this while grepping for atomic_reads in a while loops.
> > Maybe we should re-add the volatile to atomic_t. Not sure.
>
> I think whatever
From: Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:33:00 +0200
> Just saw this while grepping for atomic_reads in a while loops.
> Maybe we should re-add the volatile to atomic_t. Not sure.
I think whatever the choice, it should be done consistently
on every architecture.
It's jus
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 11:33:00AM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> From: Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> For architectures that don't have a volatile atomic_ts constructs like
> while (atomic_read(&something)); might result in endless loops since a
> barrier() is missing which forces the com
From: Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For architectures that don't have a volatile atomic_ts constructs like
while (atomic_read(&something)); might result in endless loops since a
barrier() is missing which forces the compiler to generate code that
actually reads memory contents.
Fix this in ip
13 matches
Mail list logo
