From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751900AbdHAJMu (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2017 05:12:50 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53063 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751690AbdHAJMt (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2017 05:12:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:12:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina X-X-Sender: jkosina@pobox.suse.cz To: Peter Zijlstra cc: rostedt@goodmis.org, masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com, hpa@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH]: x86: clarify/fix no-op barriers for text_poke_bp() In-Reply-To: <20170731102154.f57cvkjtnbmtctk6@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Message-ID: References: <20170731102154.f57cvkjtnbmtctk6@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LSU 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 31 Jul 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > So I was looking at text_poke_bp() today and I couldn't make sense of > the barriers there. > > How's for something like so? Hm, agreed, the barrier after unsetting in_progress is superfluous, and the comments are definitely more understandable this way; I probably didn't have one of my best days when writing those back then. Acked-by: Jiri Kosina Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs