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 03:12:16PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> 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.

Fair enough...

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-14 21:41    [W:0.068 / U:0.700 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site