On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 11:26:22AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 10:13:22PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > In the debate as to whether the second read of active->request is
> > ordered after the dependent reads of the first read of active->request,
> > just give in and throw
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 10:13:22PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> In the debate as to whether the second read of active->request is
> ordered after the dependent reads of the first read of active->request,
> just give in and throw a smp_rmb() in there so that ordering of loads is
> assured.
>
> v2:
In the debate as to whether the second read of active->request is
ordered after the dependent reads of the first read of active->request,
just give in and throw a smp_rmb() in there so that ordering of loads is
assured.
v2: Explain the manual smp_rmb()
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson
Cc: Daniel Vett
