On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 13:54 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:

What would you think of the name "coherent_*mb()"?  I would prefer to 
avoid dma in the name since, at least in my mind, that implies MMIO.

I'm lazy, I like typing less, so I like dma_* but I don't object to
coherent_* if at least one more person thinks it makes the semantics
clearer :)

It also ties in well with dma_alloc_coherent/dma_free_coherent which is 
what would typically be used to allocate the memory we would be using 
the barrier to protect anyway.

Agreed.

quoted

And yes, in the same spirit, it would probably be good to try to
eventually get rid of the plain "*mb()" functions, and perhaps call
them "mmio_*mb()" to clarify that they are about ordering memory wrt
mmio.

Hmm?

                         Linus

I will work on pulling all of the coherent barrier cases out of using 
the plain "*mb()" calls first.  We need to sort that out before we could 
look at renaming the plain barrier functions.

Makes sense.

Cheers,
Ben.

- Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/