On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 08:45:37AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > David, Linus, do you see any problems with that? To me it looks saner > > that way and as cheap as the current code, but I might be missing something > > here... > > I'd absolutely love to see this. The memory ordering for the flags > updates and reading was always really confusing, and I hated how it > was hidden inside the random access functions. And apparently it > wasn't just confusing, it was buggy too. > > But I'd love it _more_ if this also means that we can get rid of the > rmb's, which your patch didn't. Can we? Or does the ordering still > remain for some other issue?
In __d_entry_type(), you mean? Should be, along with READ_ONCE() there. AFAICS, ordering shouldn't be an issue anymore...
