From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] locking: Annotate spin_unlock_wait() users Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 18:58:36 +0200 Message-ID: <20160524165836.GC15189@worktop.bitpit.net> References: <20160524142723.178148277@infradead.org> <20160524143649.608476390@infradead.org> <20160524162207.GB3354@mtj.duckdns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Manfred Spraul , Davidlohr Bueso , Paul McKenney , Will Deacon , Boqun Feng , Waiman Long , Pablo Neira Ayuso , Patrick McHardy , David Miller , Oleg Nesterov , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, Sasha Levin , hofrat@osadl.org To: Tejun Heo Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160524162207.GB3354@mtj.duckdns.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:22:07PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > A delta but that particular libata usage is probably not needed now. > The path was used while libata was gradually adding error handlers to > the low level drivers. I don't think we don't have any left w/o one > at this point. I'll verify and get rid of that usage. OK, that would be great; I was sorta lost in there, but it looked like if you need the spin_unlock_wait() you also need the extra barrier thing. If you can remove it, better still.