arch: Cleanup read_barrier_depends() and comments

This patch is meant to cleanup the handling of read_barrier_depends and
smp_read_barrier_depends.  In multiple spots in the kernel headers
read_barrier_depends is defined as "do {} while (0)", however we then go
into the SMP vs non-SMP sections and have the SMP version reference
read_barrier_depends, and the non-SMP define it as yet another empty
do/while.

With this commit I went through and cleaned out the duplicate definitions
and reduced the number of definitions down to 2 per header.  In addition I
moved the 50 line comments for the macro from the x86 and mips headers that
defined it as an empty do/while to those that were actually defining the
macro, alpha and blackfin.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

1 files changed, 51 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/arch/alpha/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/alpha/include/asm/barrier.h
index 3832bdb794fe..77516c87255d 100644
--- a/arch/alpha/include/asm/barrier.h
+++ b/arch/alpha/include/asm/barrier.h
@@ -7,6 +7,57 @@
 #define rmb()	__asm__ __volatile__("mb": : :"memory")
 #define wmb()	__asm__ __volatile__("wmb": : :"memory")
 
+/**
+ * read_barrier_depends - Flush all pending reads that subsequents reads
+ * depend on.
+ *
+ * No data-dependent reads from memory-like regions are ever reordered
+ * over this barrier.  All reads preceding this primitive are guaranteed
+ * to access memory (but not necessarily other CPUs' caches) before any
+ * reads following this primitive that depend on the data return by
+ * any of the preceding reads.  This primitive is much lighter weight than
+ * rmb() on most CPUs, and is never heavier weight than is
+ * rmb().
+ *
+ * These ordering constraints are respected by both the local CPU
+ * and the compiler.
+ *
+ * Ordering is not guaranteed by anything other than these primitives,
+ * not even by data dependencies.  See the documentation for
+ * memory_barrier() for examples and URLs to more information.
+ *
+ * For example, the following code would force ordering (the initial
+ * value of "a" is zero, "b" is one, and "p" is "&a"):
+ *
+ * <programlisting>
+ *	CPU 0				CPU 1
+ *
+ *	b = 2;
+ *	memory_barrier();
+ *	p = &b;				q = p;
+ *					read_barrier_depends();
+ *					d = *q;
+ * </programlisting>
+ *
+ * because the read of "*q" depends on the read of "p" and these
+ * two reads are separated by a read_barrier_depends().  However,
+ * the following code, with the same initial values for "a" and "b":
+ *
+ * <programlisting>
+ *	CPU 0				CPU 1
+ *
+ *	a = 2;
+ *	memory_barrier();
+ *	b = 3;				y = b;
+ *					read_barrier_depends();
+ *					x = a;
+ * </programlisting>
+ *
+ * does not enforce ordering, since there is no data dependency between
+ * the read of "a" and the read of "b".  Therefore, on some CPUs, such
+ * as Alpha, "y" could be set to 3 and "x" to 0.  Use rmb()
+ * in cases like this where there are no data dependencies.
+ */
 #define read_barrier_depends() __asm__ __volatile__("mb": : :"memory")
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP