Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] riscv/spinlock: Strengthen implementations with fences

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 13:03:03 PST (-0800), parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:33:49AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I'm going to go produce a new set of spinlocks, I think it'll be a bit more
> > coherent then.
> >
> > I'm keeping your other patch in my queue for now, it generally looks good
> > but I haven't looked closely yet.
>
> Patches 1 and 2 address a same issue ("release-to-acquire"); this is also
> expressed, more or less explicitly, in the corresponding commit messages:
> it might make sense to "queue" them together, and to build the new locks
> on top of these (even if this meant "rewrite all of/a large portion of
> spinlock.h"...).

I agree.  IIRC you had a fixup to the first pair of patches, can you submit a 
v2?