On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:17:38AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote: > Both the implementation and the users' expectation [1] for the various > wakeup primitives have evolved over time, but the documentation has not > kept up with these changes: brings it into 2018. I wanted to reply to this saying that I'm not aware of anything relying on this actually being a smp_mb() and that I've been treating it as an RELEASE. But then I found my own comment that goes with smp_mb__after_spinlock(), which explains why we do in fact need the transitive thing if I'm not mistaken. So yes, I suppose we're entirely suck with the full memory barrier semantics like that. But I still find it easier to think of it like a RELEASE that pairs with the ACQUIRE of waking up, such that the task is guaranteed to observe it's own wake condition. And maybe that is the thing I'm missing here. These comments only state that it does in fact imply a full memory barrier, but do not explain why, should it? -- 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
