Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It does not. In most cases, the barriered version would be > smp_store_release(). Ummm... Is that good enough? Is: WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); WRITE_ONCE(x, 2); equivalent to: smp_store_release(x, 1); smp_store_release(x, 2); if CONFIG_SMP=n? (Consider what happens if an interrupt messes with x). If it is good enough, should we be using smp_load_acquire() rather than READ_ONCE()? David
