On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 08:40 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * 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? Will fix that. Thanks. Tim > > 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>