Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:05:50 +0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: mj@feral.com Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: newbus IO ordering semantics - moving forward Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmomuze%2BfX_NRhB11dJbZX54c=Gqj6EpxjjnP17BtZxCaNQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4EA9C197.9080407@feral.com> References: <CAJ-VmonFJG3xLn2JvarOUN6o-e7MC%2BA%2B=W9_vocZqY6L3CmTmQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EA9C197.9080407@feral.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28 October 2011 04:39, Matthew Jacob <mj@feral.com> wrote: > No. Please don't change the current semantics which are well understood if > only fitfully adhered to. This would put us in the position of having some > drivers possibly work slower because they didn't do the "lazy" request. > > I also am not sure I agree with your characterization of linux semantics. Hi, The point is, all (most?) of the bus glue does flushes if needed. Ie, if I understand what's going on: * amd64/intel, it's not needed; * mips doesn't implement it yet; * ppc (and sparc?) implement a bus flush on each operation anyway. Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmomuze%2BfX_NRhB11dJbZX54c=Gqj6EpxjjnP17BtZxCaNQ>