Hmm. Something just struck me when reading this patch.. Our memory ordering semantics in our *current* locks are very very subtle. We have just a "barrier()" between the
inc.head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head); if (inc.head == inc.tail) break; /* success */ and the inside of the locked region. I think it's safe because of the new memory ordering semantics (loads are in-order, and stores only move *down*), but there's not even a comment about it. So let's at least comment the current locks before making them even more complex and subtle.. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/