On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > That change makes sense. I did the original barrier back in 2006 (could you > cc me next time?)
Sorry for that, I thought get_maintainer.pl would had spit the original author's email, but apparently it didn't :( > ACCESS_ONCE or READ_ONCE was not available at that time and its now the > better way. > > This is not an s390 specific problem, it was just triggered there as the gcc > cost model > considered the memory read as cheap as a register read. > Thanks for the clarification. > Maybe simplify the comment to something like > > /* Prevent the compiler to read lock_ptr twice (if and spin_lock) */ Will do. Regards, Jianyu Zhan
