Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <6698eda3-977b-902f-ba23-89cfd674c121@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:16:23 +0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/memory-barriers.txt: Improve documentation for
 writel() usage
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>, stern@rowland.harvard.edu,
        parri.andrea@gmail.com, will@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
        j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr, paulmck@kernel.org,
        akiyks@gmail.com, dlustig@nvidia.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
        corbet@lwn.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220915050106.650813-1-parav@nvidia.com>
From:   Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220915050106.650813-1-parav@nvidia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/15/22 12:01, Parav Pandit wrote:
> The cited commit [1] describes that when using writel(), explcit wmb()
> is not needed. However, it should have said that dma_wmb() is not
> needed.
> 
> Hence update the example to be more accurate that matches the current
> implementation and document section of dma_wmb()/dma_rmb().
> 
> [1] commit 5846581e3563 ("locking/memory-barriers.txt: Fix broken DMA vs. MMIO ordering example")

Just say the blamed commit without using numbered references.


-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara