On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 02:07:19PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > ... do this next to smp_load_acquire when first mentioning > ACQUIRE. While this call is briefly explained and ctrl > dependencies are mentioned later, it does not hurt the reader. > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@xxxxxxx> Queued for review, thank you, Davidlohr! Thanx, Paul > --- > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > index 3729cbe60e41..2b5ea9d01a8f 100644 > --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > @@ -430,8 +430,9 @@ And a couple of implicit varieties: > This acts as a one-way permeable barrier. It guarantees that all memory > operations after the ACQUIRE operation will appear to happen after the > ACQUIRE operation with respect to the other components of the system. > - ACQUIRE operations include LOCK operations and smp_load_acquire() > - operations. > + ACQUIRE operations include LOCK operations and both smp_load_acquire() > + and smp_cond_acquire() operations. The later builds the necessary ACQUIRE > + semantics from relying on a control dependency and smp_rmb(). > > Memory operations that occur before an ACQUIRE operation may appear to > happen after it completes. > -- > 2.1.4 > -- 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
