[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140708075325.GL19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:53:25 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/4] documentation: Clarify
wake-up/memory-barrier relationship
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 03:24:19PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> This commit adds an example demonstrating that if a wake_up() doesn't
> actually wake something up, no memory ordering is provided.
>
> Reported-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Thanks,
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists