On 09/06/2017 02:00 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Attempt to untangle the ordering in blk-mq. The patch introducing the
> single smp_mb__before_atomic() is obviously broken in that it doesn't
> clearly specify a pairing barrier and an obtained guarantee.
>
> The comment is further misleading in t
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:02:00AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Attempt to untangle the ordering in blk-mq. The patch introducing the
> > single smp_mb__before_atomic() is obviously broken in that it doesn't
> > clearly specify a pairing barrier and an
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Attempt to untangle the ordering in blk-mq. The patch introducing the
> single smp_mb__before_atomic() is obviously broken in that it doesn't
> clearly specify a pairing barrier and an obtained guarantee.
>
> The comment is further misleading in that it
Attempt to untangle the ordering in blk-mq. The patch introducing the
single smp_mb__before_atomic() is obviously broken in that it doesn't
clearly specify a pairing barrier and an obtained guarantee.
The comment is further misleading in that it hints that the
deadline store and the COMPLETE stor
4 matches
Mail list logo
