Nick Piggin wrote on Thursday, March 30, 2006 11:35 PM
> > Whoever designed the smp_mb_before/after_* clearly understand the
> > difference between a bidirectional smp_mb() and a one-way memory
> > ordering. If smp_mb_before/after are equivalent to smp_mb, what's
> > the point of introducing another interface?
> >
>
> They are not. They provide equivalent barrier when performed
> before/after a clear_bit, there is a big difference.
Just to give another blunt brutal example, what is said here is equivalent
to say kernel requires:
<end of critical section>
smp_mb_before_spin_unlock
spin_unlock
Because it is undesirable to have spin_unlock to leak into the critical
Section and allow critical section to leak after spin_unlock. This is
just plain brain dead.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
