[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160111222235.GM6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:22:35 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/mm: Add barriers and document switch_mm()
-vs-flush synchronization
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 01:50:24PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:42:40AM -0800, tip-bot for Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> + * The bad outcome can occur if either CPU's load is
> >> + * reordered before that CPU's store, so both CPUs much
> >
> > s/much/must/ ?
>
> Indeed. Is this worth a follow-up patch?
Dunno, I didn't even spot the typo the first time I read it.. :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists