* Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This patch moves the decision of what kind of memory barriers to be > used in the MCS lock and unlock functions to the architecture specific > layer. It also moves the actual lock/unlock code to mcs_spinlock.c > file. > > A full memory barrier will be used if the following macros are not > defined: > 1) smp_mb__before_critical_section() > 2) smp_mb__after_critical_section() > > For the x86 architecture, only compiler barrier will be needed. > > Acked-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> This should be Signed-off-by and should come last in the SOB chain, as you are the person passing the patch along. > Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@xxxxxx> I think you lost a: From: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@xxxxxx> from the beginning of the mail, because right now if your patch is applied it will credit you with being the author - that wasn't the intention, right? Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>