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

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 01:32:54AM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> 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...

Good catch!  I chose the empty string.

							Thanx, Paul