On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Mark Lord wrote:You'd better not be using unaligned accesses for memory-ordering-sensitive things (I think x86 happens get even that right for most cases, but I don't think the architecture specification guarantees it, and I'm pretty sure that you might find problems on cache crossing writes, for example) But quite frankly, if you have an architecture that can't do the above as a single write when it's a pointer, then you have a totally broken architecture. It's not worth supporting. (There are data structures that are harder than native words: bytes and shorts can require load-modify-write cycles, and "u64" and friends can obviously be multiple words, so you shouldn't depend on things for those "complex" cases. But we *definitely* depend on atomicity for regular word accesses). Linus --
| Heiko Carstens | [patch -mm] s390: struct bin_attribute changes |
| Andrew Morton | 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 |
| Eric W. Biederman | Re: [PATCH] kexec: force x86_64 arches to boot kdump kernels on boot cpu |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jens Axboe | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| Andrew Morton | Re: [PATCH] PHYLIB: IRQ event workqueue handling fixes |
