diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 70a09f8a0383..a10f7cd2619e 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -269,6 +269,50 @@ And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_ be assumed:
 	STORE *(A + 4) = Y; STORE *A = X;
 	STORE {*A, *(A + 4) } = {X, Y};
 
+And there are anti-guarantees:
+
+ (*) These guarantees do not apply to bitfields, because compilers often
+     generate code to modify these using non-atomic read-modify-write
+     sequences.  Do not attempt to use bitfields to synchronize parallel
+     algorithms.
+
+ (*) Even in cases where bitfields are protected by locks, all fields
+     in a given bitfield must be protected by one lock.  If two fields
+     in a given bitfield are protected by different locks, the compiler's
+     non-atomic read-modify-write sequences can cause an update to one
+     field to corrupt the value of an adjacent field.
+
+ (*) These guarantees apply only to properly aligned and sized scalar
+     variables.  "Properly sized" currently means variables that are
+     the same size as "char", "short", "int" and "long".  "Properly
+     aligned" means the natural alignment, thus no constraints for
+     "char", two-byte alignment for "short", four-byte alignment for
+     "int", and either four-byte or eight-byte alignment for "long",
+     on 32-bit and 64-bit systems, respectively.  Note that these
+     guarantees were introduced into the C11 standard, so beware when
+     using older pre-C11 compilers (for example, gcc 4.6).  The portion
+     of the standard containing this guarantee is Section 3.14, which
+     defines "memory location" as follows:
+
+     	memory location
+		either an object of scalar type, or a maximal sequence
+		of adjacent bit-fields all having nonzero width
+
+		NOTE 1: Two threads of execution can update and access
+		separate memory locations without interfering with
+		each other.
+
+		NOTE 2: A bit-field and an adjacent non-bit-field member
+		are in separate memory locations. The same applies
+		to two bit-fields, if one is declared inside a nested
+		structure declaration and the other is not, or if the two
+		are separated by a zero-length bit-field declaration,
+		or if they are separated by a non-bit-field member
+		declaration. It is not safe to concurrently update two
+		bit-fields in the same structure if all members declared
+		between them are also bit-fields, no matter what the
+		sizes of those intervening bit-fields happen to be.
+
 
 =========================
 WHAT ARE MEMORY BARRIERS?