On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 05:39:06PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > 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. ;-)
Searching isn't working for me all that well this morning, so could you
please send me a pointer to that patch?
Thanx, Paul
