On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 03:27:21AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:20:13PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Now that may have been true on Irix/MIPS which had strong memory > > ordering so only compiler barriers were necessary. > > > > However, normally when we talk about ordered memory semantics in > > Linux, we cannot assume strong ordering - if we have ordering > > requirements, we have to guarantee ordering by explicit use of > > memory barriers, right? > > Probably. But I'm not worried about that so much, it's just timestamps > we're talking about as the size already has the ilock unlock as full > barrier, and we're going to kill this code soon anyway. Fair enough. Consider it: Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
