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

From: Chen, Kenneth W <kenneth.w.chen_at_intel.com>
Date: 2006-03-29 17:50:41
Nick Piggin wrote on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:11 AM
> OK, that's fair enough and I guess you do need a barrier there.
> However, should the mb__after barrier still remain? The comment
> in wake_up_bit suggests yes, and there is similar code in
> unlock_page.

Question on unlock_page:

void fastcall unlock_page(struct page *page)
{
        smp_mb__before_clear_bit();
        if (!TestClearPageLocked(page))
                BUG();
        smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
        wake_up_page(page, PG_locked);
}

Assuming test_and_clear_bit() on all arch does what the API is
called for with full memory fence around the atomic op, why do
you need smp_mb__before_clear_bit and smp_mb__after_clear_bit?
Aren't they redundant?

- Ken
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Wed Mar 29 17:50:32 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-03-29 17:50:40 EST