On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 10:40:58AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > > [sounds of rummaging around in the Git tree]
> > >
> > > I found this commit of yours from ancient history (more than a year ago!):
> > >
> > > commit 12d560f4ea87030667438a169912380be00cea4b
> > > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > Date: Tue Jul 14 18:35:23 2015 -0700
> > >
> > > rcu,locking: Privatize smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
> > >
> > > RCU is the only thing that uses smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), and is
> > > likely the only thing that ever will use it, so this commit makes this
> > > macro private to RCU.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
> > > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org>
> > > Cc: "linux-a...@vger.kernel.org" <linux-a...@vger.kernel.org>
> > >
> > > So I concur and I'm fine with your patch - or with the status quo code as
> > > well.
> >
> > I already have the patch queued, so how about I keep it if I get an ack
> > from the powerpc guys and drop it otherwise?
>
> Yeah, sounds good! Your patch made me look up 'RelAcq' so it has
> documentation
> value as well ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-)
Looking forward, my guess would be that if some other code needs
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() or if some other architecture needs
non-smb_mb() special handling, I should consider making it work the
same as smp_mb__after_atomic() and friends. Does that seem like a
reasonable thought?
Thanx, Paul
