Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:46:38 -0500 From: Alan Cox <alan.l.cox@gmail.com> To: Zbigniew Bodek <zbb@semihalf.com> Cc: K Macy <kmacy@freebsd.org>, imp@freebsd.org, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Buf ring cleanups Message-ID: <CAJUyCcMOJOPnz6NV0eoP9ojdzG1OmLOb6zgCfmhJLY-S6KKMQA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAG7dG%2ByT%2BhUBzUN3Zdg2MSaFEd77YXhbXxQh2FmS058UyxuLCA@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Zbigniew Bodek <zbb@semihalf.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm writing to ensure what to do with that patch: > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1945 > > It was created as a result of discussion related to this review: > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1833 > The patch (D1945) is still waiting to be committed. We really need fix > for ARM in buf_ring so if someone is sure that the patch is OK then > please commit. > > Thanks in advance and best regards > bde@, kib@, and I have been slogging through kern/, net/, and sys/ reviewing the use of memory ordering primitives and correcting problems. We should get to buf_ring.h soon. However, we also need to pause and update the atomic(9) man page. It defines the semantics of acquire and release in a way that is inconsistent with the architectures that natively support the release consistency model, e.g., arm64 and ia64, as well as the C11 and C++11 standards. Lines 330 through 339 of the patch in D1945 is one example of where the incorrect definition in the current man page has an effect. Alanhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJUyCcMOJOPnz6NV0eoP9ojdzG1OmLOb6zgCfmhJLY-S6KKMQA>