On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 03:01:08PM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote: > There is wrong comment in example for compiler store omit behavior. It > shows example of the problem and than problem solved version code. > However, the comment in the solved version is still same with not solved > version. Fix the wrong statement with this commit. > > Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@xxxxxxxxx> Hmmm... The code between the two stores of zero to "a" is intended to remain the same in the broken and fixed versions. So the only change is from "a = 0" to "WRITE_ONCE(a, 0)". Note that it is some other CPU that did the third store to "a". Or am I missing your point here? Thanx, Paul > --- > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > index 061ff29..b4754c7 100644 > --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > @@ -1471,7 +1471,7 @@ of optimizations: > wrong guess: > > WRITE_ONCE(a, 0); > - /* Code that does not store to variable a. */ > + /* Code that does store to variable a. */ > WRITE_ONCE(a, 0); > > (*) The compiler is within its rights to reorder memory accesses unless > -- > 1.9.1 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
