[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170919181600.4839-1-scottt@scottt.tw>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 02:16:00 +0800
From: Scott Tsai <scottt@...ttt.tw>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Scott Tsai <scottt@...ttt.tw>
Subject: [PATCH] memory-barriers.txt: Fix typo in pairing example
In the "general barrier pairing with implicit control depdendency"
example, the last write by CPU 1 was meant to change variable x and not
y. The example would be pretty uninteresting if no CPU ever changes x
and the variable was initialized to zero.
Signed-off-by: Scott Tsai <scottt@...ttt.tw>
---
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index b759a60624fd..468894a705a9 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -968,7 +968,7 @@ Or even:
=============== ===============================
r1 = READ_ONCE(y);
<general barrier>
- WRITE_ONCE(y, 1); if (r2 = READ_ONCE(x)) {
+ WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); if (r2 = READ_ONCE(x)) {
<implicit control dependency>
WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
}
--
2.13.5
Powered by blists - more mailing lists