From 2d142e599bf73ab70a3457e6947f86935245415e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Davidlohr Bueso Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 12:53:51 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] locking/barriers, arch: Remove ambiguous statement in the smp_store_mb() documentation It serves no purpose but to confuse readers, and is most likely a left over from constant memory-barriers.txt updates. I.e.: http://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2006/07/15/27 Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Paul E. McKenney Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1445975631-17047-5-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt index aef9487303d0..c85054dc4460 100644 --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt @@ -1673,8 +1673,8 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions: (*) smp_store_mb(var, value) This assigns the value to the variable and then inserts a full memory - barrier after it, depending on the function. It isn't guaranteed to - insert anything more than a compiler barrier in a UP compilation. + barrier after it. It isn't guaranteed to insert anything more than a + compiler barrier in a UP compilation. (*) smp_mb__before_atomic(); -- 2.39.5