[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180628130258.GF7646@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 06:02:58 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] locking: Clarify requirements for
smp_mb__after_spinlock()
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:41:19PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> + * smp_mb__after_spinlock() provides a full memory barrier between po-earlier
> + * lock acquisitions and po-later memory accesses.
What does po-earlier mean? Partial order?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists