Re: [PATCH] metag: fix memory barriers

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 870 bytes --]

On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 03:51:37PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> Volatile access doesn't really imply the compiler barrier. Volatile access
> is only ordered with respect to other volatile accesses, it isn't ordered
> with respect to general memory accesses. Gcc may reorder memory accesses
> around volatile access, as we can see in this simple example (if we
> compile it with optimization, both increments of *b will be collapsed to
> just one):
> 
> void fn(volatile int *a, long *b)
> {
> 	(*b)++;
> 	*a = 10;
> 	(*b)++;
> }
> 
> Consequently, we need the compiler barrier after a write to the volatile
> variable, to make sure that the compiler doesn't reorder the volatile
> write with something else.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]