> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:05:33AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > > Actually on the second thought: does the above memory ordering differences > > really apply when we have ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT? To me it looks like the way > > how it is currently implemented for x86 is the same way as it is for atomic cases. > > Never look to x86 for memory ordering, its boring. > > And yes, for the ARM implementation it can certainly make a difference. So, yes, what I am trying to say is that it can really depend if you have ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT enabled or not and then also based on architecture. Thus I believe is also true for atomic: there might be differences when you use arch. dependent version of function or not. So, I guess if I rewrite the commits, I should only include the statement on relaxed memory order for REFCOUNT_FULL and tell that arch. specific implementations may vary on their properties (as they do now).
