Fix unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_unlock()

From: Christoph Lameter <>
Date: 2006-03-28 14:59:02
Currently unlock_buffer() contains a smb_mb__after_clear_bit() which is 
weird because bit_spin_unlock() uses smb_mb__before_clear_bit():

From include/linux/bit_spinlock.h:

static inline void bit_spin_unlock(int bitnum, unsigned long *addr)
        clear_bit(bitnum, addr);

For most architectures there is no difference because both
smp_mb__after_clear_bit() and smp_mb__before_clear_bit() are both
memory barriers and clear_buffer_locked() is an atomic operation.
However, they differ under IA64.

Note that this potential race has never been seen under IA64. It was 
discovered by inspection by Zoltan Menyhart <>. 

Regardless if this is a true race or not, I think the unlock sequence 
needs to be the same for bit locks and unlock_buffer(). Maybe 
unlock_buffer and lock_buffer better use bit spinlock operations?

Change unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_spin_unlock.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <>

Index: linux-2.6/fs/buffer.c
--- linux-2.6.orig/fs/buffer.c	2006-03-27 14:09:54.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6/fs/buffer.c	2006-03-27 19:40:32.000000000 -0800
@@ -78,8 +78,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__lock_buffer);
 void fastcall unlock_buffer(struct buffer_head *bh)
+	smp_mb__before_clear_bit();
-	smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
 	wake_up_bit(&bh->b_state, BH_Lock);
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:59:02 -0800 (PST)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-03-28 14:59:57 EST