From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Each control-dependency example needs its barriers between the "if"
condition and the body of the "if" because a control dependency is
a dependency induced by a branch. This commit makes the needed
adjustment.
Reported-by: Yongming Shen <symi...@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 10 ++++++----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index fa5d8a9..c8c42e6 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -531,9 +531,10 @@ dependency barrier to make it work correctly. Consider
the following bit of
code:
q = &a;
- if (p)
+ if (p) {
+ <data dependency barrier>
q = &b;
- <data dependency barrier>
+ }
x = *q;
This will not have the desired effect because there is no actual data
@@ -542,9 +543,10 @@ attempting to predict the outcome in advance. In such a
case what's actually
required is:
q = &a;
- if (p)
+ if (p) {
+ <read barrier>
q = &b;
- <read barrier>
+ }
x = *q;
--
1.8.1.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
