On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 19:20:02 PST (-0800), [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 01:39:12PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:RISC-V: Remove smb_mb__{before,after}_spinlock()I wonder whether you really meant to remove smp_mb__after_spinlock(): on the one hand, this primitive doesn't seem "obsolete" (as suggested by the commit message); on the other hand, the Draft Specification at https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151218405830993&w=2 suggests that you need "to strengthen" the generic implementation for this primitive (considered the current spinlock.h in riscv). What am I missing?
The comment was incorrect, which caused me to incorrectly remove the fence from our port. I just sent out a patch (well, actually, I did last night -- I just found this email sitting in a buffer...).
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/6/1136 Thanks for catching this!
