lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:00:14PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 01:51:46PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 01:45:40PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:04:29AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > Given that RCU is currently the only user of this barrier, how would you
> > > > feel about making the barrier local to RCU and not part of the general
> > > > memory-barrier API?
> > >
> > > In theory, no objection. Your thought is to leave the definitions where
> > > they are, mark them as being used only by RCU, and removing mention from
> > > memory-barriers.txt? Or did you have something else in mind?
> >
> > Actually, I was thinking of defining them in an RCU header file with an
> > #ifdef CONFIG_POWERPC for the smb_mb() version. Then you could have a big
> > comment describing the semantics, or put that in an RCU Documentation file
> > instead of memory-barriers.txt.
> >
> > That *should* then mean we notice anybody else trying to use the barrier,
> > because they'd need to send patches to either add something equivalent
> > or move the definition out again.
>
> My concern with this approach is that someone putting together a new
> architecture might miss this. That said, this approach certainly would
> work for the current architectures.

I don't think they're any more likely to miss it than with the current
situation where the generic code defines the macro as a NOP unless you
explicitly override it.

Will


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-14 16:21    [W:0.115 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site