Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock

From: Oleg Nesterov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:44:40 +0200

On 07/07, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> Actually, thinking about it more, to appropriately support x86, as well
> as powerpc, arm and mips, we would need something like:
>
> read_lock_smp_mb()
>
> Which would be a read_lock with an included memory barrier.

Then we need read_lock_irq_smp_mb, read_lock_irqsave__smp_mb, write_lock_xxx,
otherwise it is not clear why only read_lock() has _smp_mb() version.

The same for spin_lock_xxx...

Oleg.