[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140224013254.5004c4fb@stein>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 01:32:54 +0100
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Chris Boot <bootc@...tc.net>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
target-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: memory-barriers.txt again (was Re: [PATCH 4/9] firewire: don't
use PREPARE_DELAYED_WORK)
On Feb 23 Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> Please see below for a patch against the current version of
>>> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. Does this update help?
Thank you, this clarifies it.
[...]
A new nit:
> +The operations will always occur in one of the following orders:
>
> - STORE *A, RELEASE, ACQUIRE, STORE *B
> - STORE *A, ACQUIRE, RELEASE, STORE *B
> + STORE *A, RELEASE, ACQUIRE, smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), STORE *B
> + STORE *A, ACQUIRE, RELEASE, smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), STORE *B
> + ACQUIRE, STORE *A, RELEASE, smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), STORE *B
>
> -If the RELEASE and ACQUIRE were instead both operating on the same lock
> -variable, only the first of these two alternatives can occur.
> +If the RELEASE and ACQUIRE were instead both operating on the
> +same lock variable, only the first of these two alternatives can
> +occur.
^^^
...these {,three} alternatives...
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-====- --=- ==---
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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