[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1108291712590.3904@dhcp-27-109.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:16:06 +0200 (CEST)
From: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To: Lin Ming <lxy@...pku.edu.cn>
cc: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: blkdev_issue_discard() hangs forever if the underlying storage
device is removed
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Lin Ming wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Lin Ming wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Regarding the atomic operations I do not think that implicit memory
> >> > barriers are needed here as atomic_dec_and_test() implies memory
> >>
> >> Which implicit memory barrier you are talking about?
> >
> > smp_mb() at both side of the operation as documented here in
> > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
> But I don't follow you ... why that implicit memory barriers are NOT needed?
>
Oh, I am sorry I have actually wanted to say that *explicit* memory
barriers are no needed in that case. Sorry for the confusion!
Thanks!
-Lukas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists