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

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Fri, 09 Mar 2018 04:16:43 PST (-0800), parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:11:12PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I've just sent it (with updated changelog).

Thanks!