Re: [PATCH (take 2)] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes

[David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>]

Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/