[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170222114117.GR6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:41:17 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>
Cc: Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>,
linux@...ck-us.net, openrisc@...ts.librecores.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/25] openrisc: add spinlock implementation
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 04:11:39AM +0900, Stafford Horne wrote:
> +static inline void arch_spin_unlock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> +{
> + smp_mb();
> + lock->tickets.owner++;
> +}
This is putting a lot of trust in the compiler, nothing is volatile so
it can do horrible things.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists