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, 0 insertions, 52 deletions

diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/barrier.h
index d0101dd0575e..3d69aa829a76 100644
--- a/arch/mips/include/asm/barrier.h
+++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/barrier.h
@@ -10,58 +10,6 @@
 
 #include <asm/addrspace.h>
 
-/*
- * 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()          do { } while(0)
 #define smp_read_barrier_depends()      do { } while(0)