[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170731111648.6c7d62f2@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:16:48 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: jkosina@...e.cz, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com,
hpa@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH]: x86: clarify/fix no-op barriers for
text_poke_bp()
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 17:04:11 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> Well, this is x86, its a NO-OP. The only reason to write barriers like
Is it really a nop?
> that is for documentation purposes and in that regard is confuses. IOW
> has negative value.
Not arguing. But a comment would have helped, even if it was
/* This isn't really needed, but just being paranoid */
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists