[PATCH tip/core/rcu 9/9] doc: Update control-dependencies section of memory-barriers.txt

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

From: pierre Kuo <vichy.kuo@gmail.com>

In the following example, if MAX is defined to be 1, then the compiler
knows (Q % MAX) is equal to zero.  The compiler can therefore throw
away the "then" branch (and the "if"), retaining only the "else" branch.

	q = READ_ONCE(a);
	if (q % MAX) {
		WRITE_ONCE(b, 1);
		do_something();
	} else {
		WRITE_ONCE(b, 2);
		do_something_else();
	}

It is therefore necessary to modify the example like this:

        q = READ_ONCE(a);
-       WRITE_ONCE(b, 1);
+       WRITE_ONCE(b, 2);
        do_something_else();

Signed-off-by: pierre Kuo <vichy.kuo@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 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 d2b0a8d81258..08329cb857ed 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -768,7 +768,7 @@ equal to zero, in which case the compiler is within its rights to
 transform the above code into the following:
 
 	q = READ_ONCE(a);
-	WRITE_ONCE(b, 1);
+	WRITE_ONCE(b, 2);
 	do_something_else();
 
 Given this transformation, the CPU is not required to respect the ordering
-- 
2.5.2