Re: [patch] linux 2.4.17: The second mb() rework (final)

["Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>]

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
> 
> > So I think that the Linux code was perfectly correct in considering
> > the TX39 to be without SYNC, just as a Vr4101 must be
> > consdered to be without LL/SC.  They decode the instructions,
> > but they don't actually implement them as specified.
> 
>  The code is not correct if "bc0f" is needed to be sure a write-back
> happened.  If that is the case, the processors need their own wbflush() 
> implementation like R2k/R3k configurations in older DECstations. 

Note that I did not say that "the code is correct", only that it
is correct *in considering the TX39 to be effectively SYNC-less*.
I'm sure that the code is anyway broken six ways from Wednesday,
as usual.  ;-)

            Kevin K.