Re: RFC: patch to allow lock-free traversal of lists with insertion

[Paul E. McKenney]

>> Here are two patches.  The wmbdd patch has been modified to use
>> the lighter-weight SPARC instruction, as suggested by Dave Miller.
>> The rmbdd patch defines an rmbdd() primitive that is defined to be
>> rmb() on Alpha and a nop on other architectures.  I believe this
>> rmbdd() primitive is what Richard is looking for.
>
>Surely we don't need both?  If rmbdd exists, any code needing wmbdd
>is terminally broken?

One or the other.  And at this point, it looks like rmbdd() (or
read_cache_depends()) is the mechanism of choice, given wmbdd()'s
performance on Alpha.

						Thanx, Paul