On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 02:07:19PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> ... do this next to smp_load_acquire when first mentioning
> ACQUIRE. While this call is briefly explained and ctrl
> dependencies are mentioned later, it does not hurt the reader.
>
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbu...@suse.de>
Queued for review, thank you, Davidlohr!
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> index 3729cbe60e41..2b5ea9d01a8f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> @@ -430,8 +430,9 @@ And a couple of implicit varieties:
> This acts as a one-way permeable barrier. It guarantees that all memory
> operations after the ACQUIRE operation will appear to happen after the
> ACQUIRE operation with respect to the other components of the system.
> - ACQUIRE operations include LOCK operations and smp_load_acquire()
> - operations.
> + ACQUIRE operations include LOCK operations and both smp_load_acquire()
> + and smp_cond_acquire() operations. The later builds the necessary
> ACQUIRE
> + semantics from relying on a control dependency and smp_rmb().
>
> Memory operations that occur before an ACQUIRE operation may appear to
> happen after it completes.
> --
> 2.1.4
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
