Re: [tip: locking/core] locking/pvqspinlock: Use try_cmpxchg_acquire() in trylock_clear_pending()
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [tip: locking/core] locking/pvqspinlock: Use try_cmpxchg_acquire() in trylock_clear_pending()
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 09:31:26 -0700
- Cc: linux-tip-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@xxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>, x86@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <171284242025.10875.1534973785149780371.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
- References: <20240325140943.815051-1-ubizjak@gmail.com> <171284242025.10875.1534973785149780371.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 at 06:33, tip-bot2 for Uros Bizjak
<tip-bot2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Use try_cmpxchg_acquire(*ptr, &old, new) instead of
> cmpxchg_relaxed(*ptr, old, new) == old in trylock_clear_pending().
The above commit message is horribly confusing and wrong.
I was going "that's not right", because it says "use acquire instead
of relaxed" memory ordering, and then goes on to say "No functional
change intended".
But it turns out the *code* was always acquire, and it's only the
commit message that is wrong, presumably due to a bit too much
cut-and-paste.
But please fix the commit message, and use the right memory ordering
in the explanations too.
Linus
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Stable Commits]
[Linux Stable Kernel]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux USB Devel]
[Linux Video &Media]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]