David Mosberger-Tang wrote: >>Why do not "readb()" ... "writeb()" include "mf.a"-s? > > Again, acceptance is not normally needed by readX/writeX and mf.a is > extremely expensive (on the order of 1,000 cycles). If you want > ordering, you need to use explicit barriers (or rely on the effect of > "volatile" in ia64-specific code). Assuming a device driver uses memory mapped I/O, what is the architecture independent way to make sure that the I/O reads - writes are accepted ? (I cannot use "__ia64_mf_a()".) What is the difference between "readb_relaxed()" and "readb()"? Were not they defined to provide both strict and weak (relaxed) I/O ordering? Thanks, Zoltan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Wed Apr 26 01:21:36 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-04-26 01:21:48 EST