On 7/16/19 11:01 AM, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 02:53:09PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:P1(atomic_t *reorder_objects, spinlock_t *pd_lock, spinlock_t *reorder_lock) { int r1; spin_lock(reorder_lock); atomic_inc(reorder_objects); spin_unlock(reorder_lock); //smp_mb(); r1 = spin_trylock(pd_lock); }Yes we need a matching mb on the other side. However, we can get away with using smp_mb__after_atomic thanks to the atomic_inc above. Daniel, can you please respin the patch with the matching smp_mb?
Sure, Herbert, will do. Thanks, Daniel
