Re: [PATCH v5] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 05:08:21PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > More than one kernel developer has expressed the opinion that the LKMM > should enforce ordering of writes by locking. In other words, given > the following code: > > WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); > spin_unlock(): > spin_lock();

Re: [PATCH v5] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 05:08:21PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > More than one kernel developer has expressed the opinion that the LKMM > should enforce ordering of writes by locking. In other words, given > the following code: > > WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); > spin_unlock(): > spin_lock();

[PATCH v5] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire

More than one kernel developer has expressed the opinion that the LKMM should enforce ordering of writes by locking. In other words, given the following code: WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); spin_unlock(): spin_lock(); WRITE_ONCE(y, 1); the stores to x and y should be

[PATCH v5] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire

More than one kernel developer has expressed the opinion that the LKMM should enforce ordering of writes by locking. In other words, given the following code: WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); spin_unlock(): spin_lock(); WRITE_ONCE(y, 1); the stores to x and y should be