[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxCmqz-ZXB7Fs8S0+57ckseqSJtCd_JfN49Lpt5Fr2YEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 11:26:32 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] locking/mcs: Relax to atomic/release semantics
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> wrote:
> ... by using acquire semantics where appropriate As such, weakly
> ordered archs can benefit from more relaxed use of barriers when
> issuing atomics.
Again, subject is wrong.
Also, I actually think you should avoid using the word "relax", since
that actually has a separate meaning for the atomics, and it is *not*
using those relaxed semantics, and they wouldn't work anyway.
So you might as well just say something like
"locking: use acquire/release semantics"
or similar. Ok?
Linus
--
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