On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 09:07:27PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 02/20/2014 08:59 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 08:44:46PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >>>+static void fw_device_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
> >>>+{
> >>>+ struct fw_device *device = container_of(to_delayed_work(work),
> >>>+ struct fw_device, work);
> >>
> >>I think this needs an smp_rmb() here.
> >
> >The patch is equivalent transformation and the whole thing is
> >guaranteed to have gone through pool->lock. No explicit rmb
> >necessary.
>
> The spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock) only guarantees completion of
> memory operations _before_ the unlock; memory operations which occur
> _after_ the unlock may be speculated before the unlock.
>
> IOW, unlock is not a memory barrier for operations that occur after.
It's not just unlock. It's lock / unlock pair on the same lock from
both sides. Nothing can sip through that.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
