On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > OK, but we'd have some kind of functions that are called not to > serialise the CPUs, but to serialise the IO. It would be up to > the calling code to already provide CPU synchronisation. > > serialize_io(); / unserialize_io(); / a nicer name We could call it "mmiowb()", for example? Radical idea, I know. > If we could pass in some kind of relevant resoure (eg. the IO > memory or device or something), then we might even be able to > put debug checks there to ensure two CPUs are never inside the > same critical IO section at once. We could certainly give it the spinlock as an argument. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: 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
|