On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:13:23AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 12:11:57PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Should we rename smp_mb__before_spinlock() to be smp_mb__before_acquire()? > > > > +ACQUIRE can be followed by an smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() invocation. This > > > > And should we rename this to be smp_mb__after_release_acquire()? > > > > (I kind of hope not, as it is a bit more typing.) > > you could name it: smp_mb__after_rel_acq(), which is shorter again :-) > > But on both cases, I would propose to wait until we have a use-case > where we need these barriers on !spinlocks. Indeed, the number of uses will be small enough for quite some time to allow renaming (or not) at our leisure. Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
