[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170801125226.undc24ek5d6y46d4@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 14:52:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3]: documentation,atomic: Add new documents
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:17:13PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Also, wouldn't this problem also arise if your atomics were built using a
> spinlock where unlock had release semantics?
I'm hoping none of our spnilock based atomics have weak ordering.
Spinlock based atomics are a little crazy to begin with, making them
weak *shudder*.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists