On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:54:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:43:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Looks like I need to rebase my patch on top of a9668cd6ee28, and > > than put an smp_mb__after_spinlock() between the lock and the unlock. > > > > Peter, any objections to that approach? Other suggestions? > > Hurm.. I'll have to try and understand that comment there again it > seems. My reasoning is as follows: 1. The critical section is empty, so any prior references would be ordered only against later critical sections. 2. A full barrier within the critical section will order those prior references against later critical sections just as easily as would one prior to the critical section. Does that make sense, I should I have stayed away from the keyboard at this early hour? ;-) Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
