Linus Torvalds writes: (Summary) wrote:
Oh, I know.
Oh, I know.
I'm just saying that the Intel docs wrt cross-modifying code are most likely crap and overly defensive.
likely crap and overly defensive.
The sequence they _say_ is required can not possibly be required, simply because people already depend on it not being required. They only started truly documenting what they *really* did about ten years ago.
*really* did about ten years ago.
Remember when we thought you needed a locked instruction or a memory barrier in between two reads, and our "smp_rmb()" was an actual barrier instruction?
barrier instruction?
Yeah, that was always bogus, but it was what the (bad) intel documentation said you had to do.
[...]
Manual, Volume 3: System Programming.Oh, I know.
Oh, I know.
I'm just saying that the Intel docs wrt cross-modifying code are most likely crap and overly defensive.
likely crap and overly defensive.
The sequence they _say_ is required can not possibly be required, simply because people already depend on it not being required. They only started truly documenting what they *really* did about ten years ago.
*really* did about ten years ago.
Remember when we thought you needed a locked instruction or a memory barrier in between two reads, and our "smp_rmb()" was an actual barrier instruction?
barrier instruction?
Yeah, that was always bogus, but it was what the (bad) intel documentation said you had to do.