Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "volatile_memcpi".
Did you mean:
volatile_memcpy
2023 Apr 17
1
[PATCH v3 RESEND 1/2] virtio_ring: add a struct device forward declaration
The virtio_ring header file uses the struct device without a forward
declaration.
Signed-off-by: Shunsuke Mie <mie at igel.co.jp>
---
Changes from v2: https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/20230410074929-mutt-send-email-mst at kernel.org/
- Fix a typo of commit title
include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/virtio_ring.h
2023 Apr 10
2
[PATCH v2 1/2] virtio_ring: add a struce device forward declaration
The virtio_ring header file uses the struct device without a forward
declaration.
Signed-off-by: Shunsuke Mie <mie at igel.co.jp>
---
include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/virtio_ring.h b/include/linux/virtio_ring.h
index 8b95b69ef694..77a9c2f52919 100644
--- a/include/linux/virtio_ring.h
+++ b/include/linux/virtio_ring.h
@@ -58,6
2019 Jun 13
2
@llvm.memcpy not honoring volatile?
> On Jun 12, 2019, at 9:38 PM, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:08 PM JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> I think we want option 2.: keep volatile memcpy, and implement it as touching each byte exactly once. That’s unlikely to be particularly useful for every direct-to-hardware
2019 Jun 11
3
@llvm.memcpy not honoring volatile?
> On Jun 11, 2019, at 6:27 AM, Guillaume Chatelet <gchatelet at google.com> wrote:
>
> I spent some time reading the C standard <https://web.archive.org/web/20181230041359if_/http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/abq/c17_updated_proposed_fdis.pdf>:
>
> 5.1.2.3 Program execution
> 2. Accessing a volatile object, modifying an object, modifying a file, or calling