On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Milton Miller <miltonm@xxxxxxx> wrote: > So the real question should be why is x86-32 supplying a broken writeq > instead of letting drivers work out what to do it when needed? Sounds a lot like what I was asking a couple of years ago :) http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/19/164 But Ingo insisted that non-atomic writeq would be fine: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/19/167 - R. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
