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

From: Nick Piggin <>
Date: 2006-03-30 12:36:25
Chen, Kenneth W wrote:

>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
>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?

Yep. I pointed this out earlier.

I'd say it may have initially just been a ClearPageLocked, and
was changed for debugging reasons.

We could instead change it to

ClearPageLocked(page); /* this does clear_bit_for_unlock */


Send instant messages to your online friends 

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Thu Mar 30 13:52:14 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-03-30 13:52:25 EST