Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:09:13 -0700 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Roudier?= <groudier@club-internet.fr> Cc: freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fxp0 hangs on a PC164 using STABLE Message-ID: <200007202209.PAA00823@mass.osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:54:24 %2B0200." <Pine.LNX.4.10.10007202141260.1970-100000@linux.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> It is my opinion. You may disagree but it will hard for anybody to > convince me that I am wrong. ;-) On x86, it's very hard for you to be right; the CPU specification and bus= bridge behaviour both guarantee retirement of writes in order of issuance= =2E This combined with strong cache coherency makes barriers irrelevant on this platform. As far as other platforms are concerned, however, you're quite correct. There does need to be an extension to the busspace API to define a range = of host memory with a tag/handle pair for barrier activity. -- = =2E.. every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007202209.PAA00823>