On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 01:13:46PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > I'm not sure I really see the benefit of the rename, to be honest with you, > especially if smp_mb__after_spinlock() doesn't disappear at the same time.
The reason I proposed a rename is because:
mutex_lock(&foo);
smp_mb__after_spinlock();
looks weird. But, afaict, it will work as expected. As the only possible
way to implement any lock() is with atomic*_acquire() or stronger.
Another possible name would be: smp_mb__after_lock().
