RE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: "'Christoph Lameter'" <clameter@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
- From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:11:47 -0800
- Cc: "'Nick Piggin'" <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Zoltan Menyhart'" <Zoltan.Menyhart@xxxxxxxx>, "'Boehm, Hans'" <hans.boehm@xxxxxx>, "'Grundler, Grant G'" <grant.grundler@xxxxxx>, <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603301907070.3145@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Thread-index: AcZUcG9WMh3BLIibTrewWhknqyBf9QAAEGzA
Christoph Lameter wrote on Thursday, March 30, 2006 7:09 PM
> I was referring to the LOCK prefix. Doesnt that insure the processor to
> go into a special state and make the bus go into a special state that
> implies a barrier?
Yes, that's why on i386 both smp_mb__before_clear_bit() and
smp_mb__after_clear_bit() are noop.
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]
