On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:16 PM, H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com> wrote: > > NAK. We already have the "+m" for exactly this reason; adding an > explicit memory clobber should only be used to prevent movement of > *other* memory operations around this one (i.e. a barrier). >
OK. If that is so, can you please explain why we need it in the __raw_cmpxchg() case? I think it is a good idea to make cmpxchg() and cmpxchg_double() have similar barrier semantics. Thanks! -- Pranith -- 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/
