From: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC:PATCH] Correct cpu_relax() documentation
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:30:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100309163024.GA17428@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
Subject: Correct cpu_relax() documentation
cpu_relax() is documented in volatile-considered-harmful.txt to be a
memory barrier. However, everyone with the exception of Blackfin and
possibly ia64 defines cpu_relax() to be a compiler barrier.
Make the documentation reflect the general concensus.
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
---
Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt | 6 +++---
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt b/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
index 991c26a..db0cb22 100644
--- a/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
+++ b/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
@@ -63,9 +63,9 @@ way to perform a busy wait is:
cpu_relax();
The cpu_relax() call can lower CPU power consumption or yield to a
-hyperthreaded twin processor; it also happens to serve as a memory barrier,
-so, once again, volatile is unnecessary. Of course, busy-waiting is
-generally an anti-social act to begin with.
+hyperthreaded twin processor; it also happens to serve as a compiler
+barrier, so, once again, volatile is unnecessary. Of course, busy-
+waiting is generally an anti-social act to begin with.
There are still a few rare situations where volatile makes sense in the
kernel:
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
reply other threads:[~2010-03-09 16:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100309163024.GA17428@flint.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).