Re: Memory Barrier Definitions

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205130938380.19524-100000@home.transmeta.com> you wr
ite:
> We're _not_ going to make up a complicated, big fancy new model. We might
> tweak the current one a bit. And if that means that some architectures get
> heavier barriers than they strictly need, then so be it. There are two
> overriding concerns:
> 
>  - sanity: maybe it's better to have one mb() that is a sledgehammer but
>    obvious, than it is to have many subtle variations that are just asking
>    for subtle bugs.

NO NO NO.  Look at what actually happens now:

	void init_bh(int nr, void (*routine)(void))
	{
		bh_base[nr] = routine;
		mb();
	}

Now, what is this mb() for?  Are you sure?

If we can come up with a better fit between the macros and what the
code are trying to actually do, we win, even if they all map to the
same thing *today*.  While we're there, if we can get something that
fits with different architectures, great.

Clearer?
Rusty.
--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.