From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752055AbbJLLyp (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:54:45 -0400
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:49147 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752026AbbJLLyn (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:54:43 -0400
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:54:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the
 barriers in wake_*()
Message-ID: <20151012115438.GM3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1441674841-11498-1-git-send-email-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
 <20150909192822.GM4029@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150910021612.GC18494@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
 <20150910175557.GA20640@redhat.com>
 <20150917130125.GL3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150924132121.GA1814@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
 <20151006160650.GT3604@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151011152640.GC27351@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
 <20151012004044.GZ3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20151012090636.GF27351@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151012090636.GF27351@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 05:06:36PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Understood.
> 
> But, IMO, the position of this section is already misleading:
> 
> (*) Implicit kernel memory barriers.
>      - Locking functions.
>      - Interrupt disabling functions.
>    ->- Sleep and wake-up functions.<-
>      - Miscellaneous functions.
> 
> I read it as that sleep and wake-up functions provide some kernel memory
> barriers which we can use *externally*(outside sleep/wakeup themselves).

I think it is useful to state that the primitives handle the ordering
between the waker and wakee wrt the 'blocking' state.

But I've not put much thought into wording. I wanted to finish process
order 'comment' patch first.