RE: [PATCH v5] locking/memory-barriers.txt: Improve documentation for writel() example

[Parav Pandit]

Hi Will, Paul,

> From: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2022 1:56 PM
> 
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 11:10:00PM +0300, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > The cited commit describes that when using writel(), explicit wmb() is
> > not needed. wmb() is an expensive barrier. writel() uses the needed
> > platform specific barrier instead of wmb().
> >
> > writeX() section of "KERNEL I/O BARRIER EFFECTS" already describes
> > ordering of I/O accessors with MMIO writes.
> >
> > Hence add the comment for pseudo code of writel() and remove confusing
> > text around writel() and wmb().
> >
> > commit 5846581e3563 ("locking/memory-barriers.txt: Fix broken DMA vs.
> > MMIO ordering example")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Hearing no immediate objections, I have pulled this in for further review.  If
> all goes well, I intend to submit this during the upcoming
> v6.2 merge window.
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul

I have taken Will's email patch suggestion with small editorial modification in it.
But I was afraid to add his Signed-off-by myself in v5 without consulting him.

Will,
Can you please reply to add your Signed-off-by as well or not?