Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Feb 2018 09:53:53 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: remove rb-dep, smp_read_barrier_depends, and lockless_dereference |
| |
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 05:51:43PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:00:20AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Fri, 16 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 05:22:55PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > > Since commit 76ebbe78f739 ("locking/barriers: Add implicit > > > > > smp_read_barrier_depends() to READ_ONCE()") was merged for the 4.15 > > > > > kernel, it has not been necessary to use smp_read_barrier_depends(). > > > > > Similarly, commit 59ecbbe7b31c ("locking/barriers: Kill > > > > > lockless_dereference()") removed lockless_dereference() from the > > > > > kernel. > > > > > > > > > > Since these primitives are no longer part of the kernel, they do not > > > > > belong in the Linux Kernel Memory Consistency Model. This patch > > > > > removes them, along with the internal rb-dep relation, and updates the > > > > > revelant documentation. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> > > > > > > > > I queued this, but would welcome an update that addressed Akira's > > > > feedback as appropriate. > > > > > > Is it too late to send a v2 of this patch? I didn't want to do it > > > before now because the issue raised by Andrea wasn't settled. (Some > > > could claim that it still isn't fully settled...) > > > > Would you be willing to send a delta patch? I can then place it directly > > on top of your original patch, and once it settles out, I can ask Ingo > > if he is willing to update the patch in -tip. > > It would be better to have followup fixes as separate patches. I applied the > current set of fixes/improvements today to help move things along - it's all > advancing very nicely!
Will do, and glad you like it!
Thanx, Paul
| |