[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:12:32 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
corbet@....net, mhocko@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, will.deacon@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:39:40PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Just be curious, should spin_unlock_wait() semantically be an ACQUIRE?
I did wonder the same thing, it would simplify a number of things if
this were so.
--
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