On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:27:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote: > Since spin_unlock_wait() is defined as equivalent to spin_lock(); > spin_unlock(), the memory barrier before spin_unlock_wait() is > also not required. > > Not for stable! > > Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manf...@colorfullife.com> > Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pa...@netfilter.org> > Cc: netfilter-de...@vger.kernel.org > --- > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c | 8 +------- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c > b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c > index 7a3b5e6..0591a25 100644 > --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c > +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c > @@ -139,13 +139,7 @@ static void nf_conntrack_all_lock(void) > > spin_lock(&nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock); > > - /* > - * Order the store of 'nf_conntrack_locks_all' against > - * the spin_unlock_wait() loads below, such that if > - * nf_conntrack_lock() observes 'nf_conntrack_locks_all' > - * we must observe nf_conntrack_locks[] held: > - */ > - smp_store_mb(nf_conntrack_locks_all, true); > + nf_conntrack_locks_all = true;
Don't you at least need WRITE_ONCE if you're going to do this? Will
