Re: wake_q memory ordering

[Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>]

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>I don't know. The new documentation would not have answered my 
>question (is it ok to combine smp_mb__before_atomic() with 
>atomic_relaxed()?). And it copies content already present in 
>atomic_t.txt.

Well, the _relaxed (and release/acquire) extentions refer to a
_successful_ operation (LL/SC), and whether it has barriers on
each of the sides before and after. I thought you were mainly
worried about the failed CAS scenario, not the relaxed itself.

I don't know how this copies content from atomic_t.txt, at no
point does it talk about failed CAS.

>
>Thus: I would prefer if the first sentence of the paragraph is 
>replaced: The list of operations should end with "...", and it should 
>match what is in atomic_t.txt

I'll see about combining some of your changes in patch 5/5 of
your new series, but have to say I still prefer my documentation
change.

Thanks,
Davidlohr