Re: [PATCH] Documentation,barriers: Mention smp_cond_acquire()

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 02:07:19PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> ... do this next to smp_load_acquire when first mentioning
> ACQUIRE. While this call is briefly explained and ctrl
> dependencies are mentioned later, it does not hurt the reader.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@xxxxxxx>

Queued for review, thank you, Davidlohr!

							Thanx, Paul

> ---
>  Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> index 3729cbe60e41..2b5ea9d01a8f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> @@ -430,8 +430,9 @@ And a couple of implicit varieties:
>       This acts as a one-way permeable barrier.  It guarantees that all memory
>       operations after the ACQUIRE operation will appear to happen after the
>       ACQUIRE operation with respect to the other components of the system.
> -     ACQUIRE operations include LOCK operations and smp_load_acquire()
> -     operations.
> +     ACQUIRE operations include LOCK operations and both smp_load_acquire()
> +     and smp_cond_acquire() operations. The later builds the necessary ACQUIRE
> +     semantics from relying on a control dependency and smp_rmb().
> 
>       Memory operations that occur before an ACQUIRE operation may appear to
>       happen after it completes.
> -- 
> 2.1.4
>