[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 12:53:32 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: wanghongzhe <wanghongzhe@...wei.com>
Cc: luto@...capital.net, andrii@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
john.fastabend@...il.com, kafai@...com, keescook@...omium.org,
kpsingh@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, songliubraving@...com, wad@...omium.org,
yhs@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] Firstly, as Andy mentioned, this should be
smp_rmb() instead of rmb(). considering that TSYNC is a cross-thread
situation, and rmb() is a mandatory barrier which should not be used to
control SMP effects, since mandatory barriers impose unnecessary overhead on
both SMP and UP systems, as kernel Documentation said.
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 06:13:07PM +0800, wanghongzhe wrote:
> Secondly, the smp_rmb() should be put between reading SYSCALL_WORK_SECCOMP and reading
<snip>
Your subject line of the patch is a bit odd :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists