Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:59:32 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] memory-barriers.txt: Fix typo in pairing example |
| |
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 02:16:00AM +0800, Scott Tsai wrote: > In the "general barrier pairing with implicit control depdendency" > example, the last write by CPU 1 was meant to change variable x and not > y. The example would be pretty uninteresting if no CPU ever changes x > and the variable was initialized to zero. > > Signed-off-by: Scott Tsai <scottt@scottt.tw>
Queued for review, thank you!!!
Thanx, Paul
> --- > 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 b759a60624fd..468894a705a9 100644 > --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > @@ -968,7 +968,7 @@ Or even: > =============== =============================== > r1 = READ_ONCE(y); > <general barrier> > - WRITE_ONCE(y, 1); if (r2 = READ_ONCE(x)) { > + WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); if (r2 = READ_ONCE(x)) { > <implicit control dependency> > WRITE_ONCE(y, 1); > } > -- > 2.13.5 >
| |