Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 11:03:45 +0100
From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@groups.riscv.org,
        stern@rowland.harvard.edu, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [patches] Re: [GIT PULL] RISC-V Cleanups and ABI Fixes for
 4.15-rc2
Message-ID: <20171208100345.GA4209@andrea>
References: <20171203032002.GA4207@andrea>
 <mhng-e4f55571-c4df-465d-b296-e9f3554a6292@palmer-si-x1c4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <mhng-e4f55571-c4df-465d-b296-e9f3554a6292@palmer-si-x1c4>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1066
Lines: 28

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 12:59:35PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 19:20:02 PST (-0800), parri.andrea@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 01:39:12PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> >>      RISC-V: Remove smb_mb__{before,after}_spinlock()
> >
> >I wonder whether you really meant to remove smp_mb__after_spinlock():
> >on the one hand, this primitive doesn't seem "obsolete" (as suggested
> >by the commit message); on the other hand, the Draft Specification at
> >
> >  https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151218405830993&w=2
> >
> >suggests that you need "to strengthen" the generic implementation for
> >this primitive (considered the current spinlock.h in riscv).  What am
> >I missing?
> 
> The comment was incorrect, which caused me to incorrectly remove the fence
> from our port.  I just sent out a patch (well, actually, I did last night --
> I just found this email sitting in a buffer...).
> 
>  https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/6/1136

Thank you for the clarification (and for the patch),

  Andrea


> 
> Thanks for catching this!