Ingo Molnar a écrit :
quoted text
> * Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
>> @@ -302,4 +302,7 @@ static inline void __raw_write_unlock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
>>  #define _raw_read_relax(lock)	cpu_relax()
>>  #define _raw_write_relax(lock)	cpu_relax()
>>  
>> +/* The {read|write|spin}_lock() on x86 are full memory barriers. */
>> +#define smp_mb__after_lock() do { } while (0)
> 
> Two small stylistic comments, please make this an inline function:
> 
> static inline void smp_mb__after_lock(void) { }
> #define smp_mb__after_lock
> 
> (untested)
> 
>> +/* The lock does not imply full memory barrier. */
>> +#ifndef smp_mb__after_lock
>> +#define smp_mb__after_lock() smp_mb()
>> +#endif
> 
> ditto.
> 
> 	Ingo

This was following existing implementations of various smp_mb__??? helpers :

# grep -4 smp_mb__before_clear_bit include/asm-generic/bitops.h

/*
 * clear_bit may not imply a memory barrier
 */
#ifndef smp_mb__before_clear_bit
#define smp_mb__before_clear_bit()      smp_mb()
#define smp_mb__after_clear_bit()       smp_mb()
#endif


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html