Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queuespinlock implementation

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 08:59:57AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:19:37 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> > > An unlock followed by a lock needs to act like a full barrier, but there
> > > is no requirement that a lock or unlock taken separately act like a
> > > full barrier.
> > 
> > But that is already a property of the acquisition/release barrier.
> 
> As I mentioned in my fixes for the -rt swait barrier patches I sent.

Not to me you didn't ;-)

> Spin locks only prevent leaks out of the critical section. It does not
> guarantee leaks into the critical section, thus:

What's your point? You're just re-iterating the semantics in case
anybody forgot about them?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/