[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904051613500.1802@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 16:14:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/21] x86/io: Remove useless definition of mmiowb()
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019, Will Deacon wrote:
> x86 maps mmiowb() to barrier(), but this is superfluous because a
> compiler barrier is already implied by spin_unlock(). Since x86 also
> includes asm-generic/io.h in its asm/io.h file, we can remove the
s/we can//
> definition entirely and pick up the dummy definition from core code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists