Re: question on irqs and memory ordering
Oliver Neukum <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.usb.devel |
|---|---|
| Organization | Novell |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Am Donnerstag, 15. März 2007 10:39 schrieb Robert Marquardt: > Oliver Neukum wrote: > > >>> OK, thanks. I am relieved. > >>> Should I add a section concerning this to Documentation? > >> Is that a trick question? :-) > > > > No. > > Your question if it should be documented bears itself the answer. > Of course! > If an expert has doubts then lesser experts and common folk do not > understand it at all so it must be documented. As you like it. Regards Oliver Signed-off-by: Oliver Neukum <[email protected]> ----- --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt 2007-03-15 12:50:48.000000000 +0100 +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt 2007-03-15 12:53:48.000000000 +0100 @@ -1213,6 +1213,7 @@ Other functions that imply barriers: (*) schedule() and similar imply full memory barriers. + (*) entering and returning from interrupt handlers implies a full barrier ================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel