From: Michael S. Tsirkin Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:02:44 +0000 (+0200) Subject: locking/x86: Tweak the comment about use of wmb() for IO X-Git-Tag: v4.6-rc1~168^2~27 X-Git-Url: https://asedeno.scripts.mit.edu/gitweb/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=57d9b1b43433a6ba7267c80b87d8e8f6e86edceb;p=linux.git locking/x86: Tweak the comment about use of wmb() for IO On x86, we *do* still use the non-NOP rmb()/wmb() for IO barriers, but even that is generally questionable. Leave them around as historial unless somebody can point to a case where they care about the performance, but tweak the comment so people don't think they are strictly required in all cases. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Andrey Konovalov Cc: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Borislav Petkov Cc: Borislav Petkov Cc: Brian Gerst Cc: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Denys Vlasenko Cc: H. Peter Anvin Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Paul E. McKenney Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: virtualization Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1453921746-16178-4-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h index a29174599a98..bfb28caf97b1 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ /* * Force strict CPU ordering. - * And yes, this is required on UP too when we're talking + * And yes, this might be required on UP too when we're talking * to devices. */