Jarek Poplawski <[email protected]> wrote:
> @@ -546,10 +546,10 @@
> When dealing with CPU-CPU interactions, certain types of memory barrier should
> always be paired. A lack of appropriate pairing is almost certainly an error.
>
> -A write barrier should always be paired with a data dependency barrier or read
> -barrier, though a general barrier would also be viable. Similarly a read
> -barrier or a data dependency barrier should always be paired with at least an
> -write barrier, though, again, a general barrier is viable:
> +A write barrier should always be paired with a data dependency barrier or a
> +read barrier, though a general barrier would also be viable. Similarly the
> +read barrier or the data dependency barrier should always be paired with at
> +least the write barrier, though, again, the general barrier is viable:
"A" not "the" please.
> @@ -1530,7 +1530,8 @@
> If they're used for reference counting on an object to control its lifetime,
> they probably don't need memory barriers because either the reference count
> will be adjusted inside a locked section, or the caller will already hold
> -sufficient references to make the lock, and thus a memory barrier unnecessary.
> +sufficient references to make the lock, and thus the memory barrier
> +unnecessary.
Hmmm... I'm wondering if that should actually by "a lock".
David
-
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]
