Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: remove rb-dep, smp_read_barrier_depends, and lockless_dereference

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 05:51:43PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:00:20AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Fri, 16 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 05:22:55PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > > Since commit 76ebbe78f739 ("locking/barriers: Add implicit
> > > > > smp_read_barrier_depends() to READ_ONCE()") was merged for the 4.15
> > > > > kernel, it has not been necessary to use smp_read_barrier_depends().
> > > > > Similarly, commit 59ecbbe7b31c ("locking/barriers: Kill
> > > > > lockless_dereference()") removed lockless_dereference() from the
> > > > > kernel.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since these primitives are no longer part of the kernel, they do not
> > > > > belong in the Linux Kernel Memory Consistency Model.  This patch
> > > > > removes them, along with the internal rb-dep relation, and updates the
> > > > > revelant documentation.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > I queued this, but would welcome an update that addressed Akira's
> > > > feedback as appropriate.
> > > 
> > > Is it too late to send a v2 of this patch?  I didn't want to do it 
> > > before now because the issue raised by Andrea wasn't settled.  (Some 
> > > could claim that it still isn't fully settled...)
> > 
> > Would you be willing to send a delta patch?  I can then place it directly
> > on top of your original patch, and once it settles out, I can ask Ingo
> > if he is willing to update the patch in -tip.
> 
> It would be better to have followup fixes as separate patches. I applied the 
> current set of fixes/improvements today to help move things along - it's all 
> advancing very nicely!

Will do, and glad you like it!

								Thanx, Paul