On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:03:55PM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:24:16PM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:05:33AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > > > > > Actually on the second thought: does the above memory ordering > > > > > differences > > > > > really apply when we have ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT? To me it looks like the > > > > > way > > > > > how it is currently implemented for x86 is the same way as it is for > > > > > atomic > > cases. > > > > > > > > Never look to x86 for memory ordering, its boring. > > > > > > > > And yes, for the ARM implementation it can certainly make a difference. > > > > > > So, yes, what I am trying to say is that it can really depend if you have > > ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT > > > enabled or not and then also based on architecture. Thus I believe is > > > also true for > > atomic: there > > > might be differences when you use arch. dependent version of function or > > > not. > > > > So the generic one in lib/refcount.c is already weaker on ARM, they > > don't need to do a ARCH specific 'fast' implementation for the > > difference to show up. > > But can they make "fast" implementation on ARM that would give stronger > memory guarantees?
Whatever for?
