Manuel Bouyer wrote:
Remplace __insn_barrier() with x86_lfence() where appropriate.While here, replace a panic() with a return of error code in xbdback.c.Why not make __insn_barrier() equivalent to x86_lfence() on all x86?This would probablt be a good idea, but isn't __insn_barrier() a gcc builtin ?
Would that really be correct? I thought __insn_barries() was there to stop gcc from reordering instructions, whereas x86_lfence() is there to stop the processor from reordering loads and stores. -- Lennart