Re: memory-barriers.txt again (was Re: [PATCH 4/9] firewire: don't use PREPARE_DELAYED_WORK)

[Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>]

On Feb 23 Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> Please see below for a patch against the current version of
>>> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt.  Does this update help?

Thank you, this clarifies it.

[...]
A new nit:
> +The operations will always occur in one of the following orders:
>  
> -	STORE *A, RELEASE, ACQUIRE, STORE *B
> -	STORE *A, ACQUIRE, RELEASE, STORE *B
> +	STORE *A, RELEASE, ACQUIRE, smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), STORE *B
> +	STORE *A, ACQUIRE, RELEASE, smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), STORE *B
> +	ACQUIRE, STORE *A, RELEASE, smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), STORE *B
>  
> -If the RELEASE and ACQUIRE were instead both operating on the same lock
> -variable, only the first of these two alternatives can occur.
> +If the RELEASE and ACQUIRE were instead both operating on the
> +same lock variable, only the first of these two alternatives can
> +occur.
                                               ^^^
...these {,three} alternatives...
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-====- --=- ==---
http://arcgraph.de/sr/