Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] sched: membarrier: cover kthread_use_mm

[peterz]

On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 01:13:46PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> I'm not sure I really see the benefit of the rename, to be honest with you,
> especially if smp_mb__after_spinlock() doesn't disappear at the same time.

The reason I proposed a rename is because:

	mutex_lock(&foo);
	smp_mb__after_spinlock();

looks weird. But, afaict, it will work as expected. As the only possible
way to implement any lock() is with atomic*_acquire() or stronger.

Another possible name would be: smp_mb__after_lock().