On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 12:59:35PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 19:20:02 PST (-0800), parri.and...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 01:39:12PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> >> RISC-V: Remove smb_mb__{before,after}_spinlock()
> >
> >I wonder whether you really meant to remove smp_mb__after_spinlock():
> >on the one hand, this primitive doesn't seem "obsolete" (as suggested
> >by the commit message); on the other hand, the Draft Specification at
> >
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151218405830993&w=2
> >
> >suggests that you need "to strengthen" the generic implementation for
> >this primitive (considered the current spinlock.h in riscv). What am
> >I missing?
>
> The comment was incorrect, which caused me to incorrectly remove the fence
> from our port. I just sent out a patch (well, actually, I did last night --
> I just found this email sitting in a buffer...).
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/6/1136
Thank you for the clarification (and for the patch),
Andrea
>
> Thanks for catching this!
