On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 01:37:26PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 05:28:02PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h
> > b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h
> > index f89da808ce31..abf645799991 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h
> > @@ -84,4 +84,6 @@ do {
> > \
> > ___p1; \
> > })
> >
> > +#define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() do { } while (0)
> > +
> > #endif /* _ASM_POWERPC_BARRIER_H */
>
> Didn't ben said ppc actually violates the current unlock+lock assumtion
> and therefore this barrier woulnd't actually be a nop on ppc
Last I knew, I was saying that it did in theory, but wasn't able to
demonstrate it in practice. But yes, I would be more comfortable with
it being smp_mb().
Ben?
Thanx, Paul
--
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/
