lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Subject[PATCH] powerpc/64: Fix an out of date comment about MMIO ordering
Date
From
From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>

This primitive has been renamed, but because it was spelled incorrectly in the
first place it must have escaped the fixup patch. As far as I can tell this
logic is still correct: smp_mb__after_spinlock() uses the default smp_mb()
implementation, which is "sync" rather than "hwsync" but those are the same
(though I'm not that familiar with PowerPC).

Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
index b3c9f15089b6..7b38b4daca93 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
@@ -357,7 +357,7 @@ _GLOBAL(_switch)
* kernel/sched/core.c).
*
* Uncacheable stores in the case of involuntary preemption must
- * be taken care of. The smp_mb__before_spin_lock() in __schedule()
+ * be taken care of. The smp_mb__after_spinlock() in __schedule()
* is implemented as hwsync on powerpc, which orders MMIO too. So
* long as there is an hwsync in the context switch path, it will
* be executed on the source CPU after the task has performed
--
2.28.0.rc0.105.gf9edc3c819-goog
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-16 21:40    [W:0.056 / U:0.796 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site