On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 10:21:36AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 01:28:17PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > Would this be allowed if smp_load_acquire() was implemented with LDAPR? > > > If the answer is yes then we will have to remove the rfi-rel-acq and > > > rel-rf-acq-po relations from the memory model entirely. > > > > I don't understand what you mean by "rfi-rel-acq-po", and I assume you mean > > rel-rfi-acq-po for the other? Sounds like I'm confused here. > > "rfi-rel-acq" is the relation which was removed by the first of my two > patches (it is now back in business since Paul reverted the commits), > and "rel-rf-acq-po" is the relation that was introduced to replace it.
Sorry, yes, I realised this after I'd replied. Curious: but why do you name the relations this way around, as opposed to e.g. rel-rfi-acq? It's obviously up to you, but I just couldn't figure out what inspired the ordering. > At any rate, it looks like instead of strengthening the relation, I > should write a patch that removes it entirely. I also will add new, > stronger relations for use with locking, essentially making spin_lock > and spin_unlock be RCsc. Thanks, Alan. I'll try to review them a bit more quickly this time, too. Will
