Commit 5692fcc6 authored by Guilherme G. Piccoli's avatar Guilherme G. Piccoli Committed by Paul E. McKenney

doc: Rewrite confusing statement about memory barriers

The "Write (or store) memory barriers" bullet of the "Variety of memory
barriers" section, calls out a sequential order of stores, which is
confusing since sequential ordering is not guaranteed.

This commit therefore rewords to avoid mentioning a sequence of stores
to clarify the intent.

Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarGuilherme G. Piccoli <gpiccoli@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
parent d92f842b
......@@ -383,8 +383,8 @@ Memory barriers come in four basic varieties:
to have any effect on loads.
A CPU can be viewed as committing a sequence of store operations to the
memory system as time progresses. All stores before a write barrier will
occur in the sequence _before_ all the stores after the write barrier.
memory system as time progresses. All stores _before_ a write barrier
will occur _before_ all the stores after the write barrier.
[!] Note that write barriers should normally be paired with read or data
dependency barriers; see the "SMP barrier pairing" subsection.
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment