[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0907020738020.5194@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 07:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
fbl@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com, davem@...hat.com,
htejun@...il.com, jarkao2@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Jiri Olsa a écrit :
> > Adding smp_mb__after_lock define to be used as a smp_mb call after
> > a lock.
> >
> > Making it nop for x86, since {read|write|spin}_lock() on x86 are
> > full memory barriers.
> >
> > wbr,
> > jirka
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
>
>
> Maybe we should remind that sk_has_helper() is always called
> right after a call to read_lock() as in :
>
> read_lock(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
> if (sk_has_sleeper(sk))
> wake_up_interruptible_all(sk->sk_sleep);
Agreed, that'd be to have it in the source code comment.
- Davide
Powered by blists - more mailing lists