Nice to hear that.
> Everybody has convinced me that yes, the Intel ordering rules _are_ strong
> enough that all of this really is legal, and that's what I wanted. I've
> gotten sane explanations for why serialization (as opposed to just the
> simple locked access) is required for the lock() side but not the unlock()
> side, and that lack of symmetry was what bothered me the most.
>
> Oliver made a strong case that the lack of symmetry can be adequately
> explained by just simply the lack of symmetry wrt speculation of reads vs
> writes. I feel comfortable again.
Please put a file explaining all this stuff in Documentation. If it got you
wondering, think about the next kernel hacker wannabe, or even seasoned hacker.
Good work, all around. Open source at it's best yet again.
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/