On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:51 PM Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> The point being that the scenarios under discussion in this thread all
> fall most definitely into the "Non-standard usage; you'd better know
> exactly what you're doing" category.
Well, yes and no.
The thing is, people expected unlock+lock to give a memory ordering.
It happened in RCU, and it's happened before elsewhere.
So it *is* the "pure locking" thing that ends up confusing people.
Yes, you have some other access that then cares about the memory
ordering, but this is a fairly natural expectation to have
(considering that we've had the same issue before).
Linus
