From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/15] Provide atomics and bitops implemented with ISO C++11 atomics Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 20:05:58 +0200 Message-ID: <20160518180558.GI3206@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <146358423711.8596.9104061348359986393.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:43327 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752523AbcERSGI (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2016 14:06:08 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <146358423711.8596.9104061348359986393.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: David Howells Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dwmw2@infradead.org On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 04:10:37PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > (1) We could weaken the kernel memory model to for the benefit of arches > that have instructions that employ explicit acquire/release barriers - > but that may cause data races to occur based on assumptions we've > already made. Note, however, that powerpc already seems to have a > weaker memory model. Linus always vehemently argues against weakening our memory model.