Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 28 Jun 2018 15:52:06 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] locking: Clarify requirements for
 smp_mb__after_spinlock()
Message-ID: <20180628135206.GA16107@andrea>
References: <1530182480-13205-3-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1806280947080.1812-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1806280947080.1812-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> > + * smp_mb__after_spinlock() provides a full memory barrier between po-earlier
> > + * lock acquisitions and po-later memory accesses.
> 
> How about saying "provides the equivalent of a full memory barrier"?
> 
> The point being that smp_mb__after_spinlock doesn't have to provide an
> actual barrier; it just has to ensure the behavior is the same as if a
> full barrier were present.

Agreed; will fix in the next version.  Thanks,

  Andrea


> 
> Alan
>