>>>>> "hartvig" == Hartvig Ekner <hartvig@ekner.info> writes:
hartvig> I can't see that they are using wbflush in any way. Grepping
hartvig> after wbflush through the entire 2.4 tree, it seems wbflush
hartvig> is something only present on some dec platforms and then the
hartvig> au1000 stuff - which would mean that any driver directly
hartvig> calling __wbflush would be unable to compile/load on the
hartvig> majority of kernels. Or am I missing something? (I haven't
hartvig> been using modules under MIPS at all).
Yes, you missed the definition of mb() :p
quintela$ grep "mb(" drivers/net/8139* | grep -v rmb | grep -v wmb
drivers/net/8139too.c: mb();
quintela$
hartvig> In fact, I can't find a single file including wbflush.h
hartvig> except system.h, and it doesn't look like anybody else should
hartvig> directly be including the wbflush.h file, but only use the
hartvig> macros in system.h:
hartvig> #define wmb() fast_wmb()
hartvig> #define rmb() fast_rmb()
hartvig> #define mb() wbflush();
hartvig> #define iob() wbflush();
hartvig> (which are differently defined if there is no WB configured).
but WB is configured in :)
quintela$ grep WB arch/mips/defconfig-pb1*
arch/mips/defconfig-pb1000:CONFIG_CPU_HAS_WB=y
arch/mips/defconfig-pb1100:CONFIG_CPU_HAS_WB=y
arch/mips/defconfig-pb1500:CONFIG_CPU_HAS_WB=y
quintela$
Other thing is that this machine should be using wbflush at all, but
that is a different story. I agree with (/me looks in archive),
*your* patch removing wbflush for that boards. They are only doing
"sync" ond wbflush, and that is the thing that __sync() already does.
I.e. If I have to chooses wich patch to integrate, the one exporting
__wbflush(), or the one removing it altogether from pb1*, I will
choose removing it. It looks superflous.
Later, Juan "who don't have that processor, and handwaving is easy".
--
In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they
are different -- Larry McVoy
