From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: [PATCH memory-model 0/3] Kernel fixes to spin_is_locked() Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 16:01:05 -0700 Message-ID: <20180514230105.GA6421@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org Cc: stern@rowland.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@gmail.com, will.deacon@arm.com, peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr, akiyks@gmail.com List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org Hello! This series contains fixes to the kernel related to the semantics of spin_is_locked(), all courtesy of Andrea Parri, and all ready for inclusion in -tip: 1. Document the semantics of spin_is_locked() by adding a docbook header comment. 2. Remove smp_mb() from arch_spin_is_locked(), given that the new order-free spin_is_locked() semantics require no such barrier. 3. Clean up comment and #ifndef for {,queued_}spin_is_locked(). The comment was "XXX think about spin_is_locked", and I can attest that we have now done some serious thinking. ;-) Thanx, Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------