On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <d...@stgolabs.net> wrote:
>
> Note that this might affect callers that could/would rely on the
> atomicity semantics, but there are no guarantees of that for
> smp_store_mb() mentioned anywhere, plus most archs use this anyway.
> Thus we continue to be consistent with the memory-barriers.txt file,
> and more importantly, maintain the semantics of the smp_ nature.
So I dislike this patch, mostly because it now makes it obvious that
smp_store_mb() seems to be totally pointless. Every single
implementation is now apparently WRITE_ONCE+smp_mb(), and there are
what, five users of it, so why not then open-code it?
But more importantly, is the "WRITE_ONCE()" even necessary? If there
are no atomicity guarantees, then why bother with WRTE_ONCE() either?
So with this patch, the whole thing becomes pointless, I feel. (Ok, so
it may have been pointless before too, but at least before this patch
it generated special code, now it doesn't). So why carry it along at
all?
Linus
--
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/
