[PATCH] TRIVIAL I: 2.5.6-pre3. Documentation

[Rusty Russell]

Linus, please apply.  atomic ops are *not* barriers any more.

Sebastian Wilhelmi <[e-mail]>: Re: Question on your "Unreliable Guide To Locking":
  > Yes, this is no longer true.  The modern assumptions are that they are
  > not barriers.

diff -urN -I \$.*\$ --exclude TAGS -X /home/rusty/devel/kernel/kernel-patches/current-dontdiff --minimal linux-2.5.6-pre3/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl trivial-2.5.6-pre3/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl
--- linux-2.5.6-pre3/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl	Sun May 20 10:43:05 2001
+++ trivial-2.5.6-pre3/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl	Thu Mar  7 18:20:33 2002
@@ -788,8 +788,18 @@
     </para>
 
     <para>
-      Note that the atomic operations are defined to act as both
-      read and write barriers on all platforms.
+      Note that the atomic operations do in general not act as memory
+      barriers. Instead you can insert a memory barrier before or
+      after <function>atomic_inc()</function> or
+      <function>atomic_dec()</function> by inserting
+      <function>smp_mb__before_atomic_inc()</function>,
+      <function>smp_mb__after_atomic_inc()</function>,
+      <function>smp_mb__before_atomic_dec()</function> or
+      <function>smp_mb__after_atomic_dec()</function>
+      respectively. The advantage of using those macros instead of
+      <function>smp_mb()</function> is, that they are cheaper on some
+      platforms.    
+      <!-- Sebastian Wilhelmi <[e-mail]> 2002-03-04 -->
     </para>
    </sect1>
 
--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.