Re: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/07, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> Actually, thinking about it more, to appropriately support x86, as well
> as powerpc, arm and mips, we would need something like:
>
> read_lock_smp_mb()
>
> Which would be a read_lock with an included memory barrier.

Then we need read_lock_irq_smp_mb, read_lock_irqsave__smp_mb, write_lock_xxx,
otherwise it is not clear why only read_lock() has _smp_mb() version.

The same for spin_lock_xxx...

Oleg.

--
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/