Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote: > It does not. In most cases, the barriered version would be > smp_store_release().
Ummm... Is that good enough? Is:
WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
WRITE_ONCE(x, 2);
equivalent to:
smp_store_release(x, 1);
smp_store_release(x, 2);
if CONFIG_SMP=n?
(Consider what happens if an interrupt messes with x).
If it is good enough, should we be using smp_load_acquire() rather than
READ_ONCE()?
David
