On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 09:47:35AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 04:04:27PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:58:30PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 03:43:33PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > Putting a barrier in the middle of that critical section is probably a > > > > terrible idea, and that's why I thought you were avoiding it (hence my > > > > > > The fact is that I haven't thought of that way to implement > > > cmpxchg_release before you ask that question ;-) And I'm not going to do > > > that for now and probably not in the future. > > > > > > > original question). Perhaps just add a comment to that effect, since I > > > > > > Are you suggesting if I put a barrier in the middle I'd better to add a > > > comment, right? So if I don't do that, it's OK to let this patch as it. > > > > No, I mean put a comment in your file to explain the reason why you > > override _relaxed and _acquire, but not _release (because overriding > > You mean overriding _acquire and fully order version, right?
Yes, my mistake. Sounds like you get my drift, though. Will -- 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/