Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers: fix wrong comment in example

[David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>]

SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com> wrote:

> From f7b5677790771599f418f1d95536935be971ae86 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:26:18 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers: polish compiler store omit
>  example
> 
> Comments of examples about compiler store omit in memory-barriers.txt is
> about code that could be possible at that point.  However, someone could
> interpret the comment as an explanation about below line.  This commit
> exploits the intent more explicitly by changing the comment to be seems
> like a possible code rather than explanation about below line.
> 
> Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> index 904ee42..dc66351 100644
> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> @@ -1459,7 +1459,7 @@ of optimizations:
>       the following:
> 
>         a = 0;
> -       /* Code that does not store to variable a. */
> +       ... Code that does not store to variable a ...
>         a = 0;
> 
>       The compiler sees that the value of variable 'a' is already zero, so
> @@ -1471,7 +1471,7 @@ of optimizations:
>       wrong guess:
> 
>         WRITE_ONCE(a, 0);
> -       /* Code that does not store to variable a. */
> +       ... Code that does not store to variable a ...
>         WRITE_ONCE(a, 0);
> 
>   (*) The compiler is within its rights to reorder memory accesses unless

Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>