On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 03:02:19PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 02:53:40PM +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > Commit 39323c6 smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic(): update Documentation
> > has a typo in CPU MEORY BARRIERS section:
> > "RMW functions that do not imply are memory barrier are ..." should be
> > "RMW functions that do not imply a memory barrier are ...".
> >
> > This patch fixes this typo.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fox Chen <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > index 96186332e5f4..20b8a7b30320 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > @@ -1870,7 +1870,7 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
> >
> > These are for use with atomic RMW functions that do not imply memory
> > barriers, but where the code needs a memory barrier. Examples for
> > atomic
> > - RMW functions that do not imply are memory barrier are e.g. add,
> > + RMW functions that do not imply a memory barrier are e.g. add,
> > subtract, (failed) conditional operations, _relaxed functions,
> > but not atomic_read or atomic_set. A common example where a memory
> > barrier may be required is when atomic ops are used for reference
>
> The document remains unreadable, but this is still worth fixing!
>
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
Queued for v5.11, thank you both!
Thanx, Paul
