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:   Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:45:44 +0800
From:   Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Cc:     Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] rhashtable: use bit_spin_locks to protect hash
 bucket.
Message-ID: <20190327034543.aiskjamfllevxigg@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <155349021177.1111.15681654355431465791.stgit@noble.brown>
 <155349033961.1111.18247269615646768227.stgit@noble.brown>
 <20190326050320.gwk3tgtqwl5csivt@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <874l7p463d.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <874l7p463d.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 09:35:18AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> 
> The bit_spin_unlock(), which I am avoiding as unnecessary, would have
> provided release semantics.
> i.e. any write by this CPU that happened before the releasing write
> will be visible to other CPUs before (or when) they see the result of
> the releasing write.
> This is (as I understand it) exactly that rcu_assign_pointer() promises
> - even before acquire semantics were added as Paul just reported.
> 
> So yes, I am sure (surer now that I've walked through it carefully).

Given that rcu_assign_pointer now does a store release it should
indeed be safe.  Thanks!
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt