Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: fix xfs_mark_inode_dirty during umount

[Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 03:27:21AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:20:13PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Now that may have been true on Irix/MIPS which had strong memory
> > ordering so only compiler barriers were necessary.
> > 
> > However, normally when we talk about ordered memory semantics in
> > Linux, we cannot assume strong ordering - if we have ordering
> > requirements, we have to guarantee ordering by explicit use of
> > memory barriers, right?
> 
> Probably.  But I'm not worried about that so much, it's just timestamps
> we're talking about as the size already has the ilock unlock as full
> barrier, and we're going to kill this code soon anyway.

Fair enough.

Consider it:

Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>

-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx