Skip to content

Commit 147c134

Browse files
palmer-dabbeltmpe
authored andcommitted
powerpc/64: Fix an out of date comment about MMIO ordering
This primitive has been renamed, but because it was spelled incorrectly in the first place it must have escaped the fixup patch. As far as I can tell this logic is still correct: smp_mb__after_spinlock() uses the default smp_mb() implementation, which is "sync" rather than "hwsync" but those are the same (though I'm not that familiar with PowerPC). Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
1 parent e93ad65 commit 147c134

File tree

1 file changed

+1
-1
lines changed

1 file changed

+1
-1
lines changed

arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ _GLOBAL(_switch)
354354
* kernel/sched/core.c).
355355
*
356356
* Uncacheable stores in the case of involuntary preemption must
357-
* be taken care of. The smp_mb__before_spin_lock() in __schedule()
357+
* be taken care of. The smp_mb__after_spinlock() in __schedule()
358358
* is implemented as hwsync on powerpc, which orders MMIO too. So
359359
* long as there is an hwsync in the context switch path, it will
360360
* be executed on the source CPU after the task has performed

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)