> > 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. > > Only in the presence of smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() or > smp_mb__after_spinlock(), correct? Or am I confused about RCsc?
There are at least two definitions of RCsc: one as documented in the header comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock() or rather in the patch under review..., one as processor architects used to intend it. ;-) Andrea > Thanx, Paul >
