Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 01:04:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 04:25:37PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> > Documenting it would definitely be good, but even then I'd be inclined >> > to leave the barrier in our implementation. Matching the documented >> > behaviour is one thing, but the actual real-world behaviour on well >> > tested platforms (ie. x86) is more important. >> >> By that argument you should switch your spinlock implementation to RCpc >> and include that SYNC in either lock or unlock already ;-) > > *RCsc* obviously... clearly I need to wake up moar.
It's just a jumble of letters to me - I didn't even notice ;) cheers
