search for: __asm_barrier_h

...ine smp_read_barrier_depends() do { } while(0) - -#define smp_store_mb(var, value) do { WRITE_ONCE(var, value); smp_mb(); } while (0) - -#define smp_mb__before_atomic() smp_mb() -#define smp_mb__after_atomic() smp_mb() +#include <asm-generic/barrier.h> #endif /* !__ASSEMBLY__ */ #endif /* __ASM_BARRIER_H */ -- MST

...) - -#define smp_store_mb(var, value) do { WRITE_ONCE(var, value); smp_mb(); } while (0) - #define smp_store_release(p, v) \ do { \ compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p); \ @@ -53,4 +45,6 @@ do { \ ___p1; \ }) +#include <asm-generic/barrier.h> + #endif /* __ASM_BARRIER_H */ -- MST

...\ -({ \ - typeof(*p) ___p1 = READ_ONCE(*p); \ - compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p); \ - smp_mb(); \ - ___p1; \ -}) - #define smp_mb__before_atomic() smp_mb__before_llsc() #define smp_mb__after_atomic() smp_llsc_mb() +#include <asm-generic/barrier.h> + #endif /* __ASM_BARRIER_H */ -- MST

...\ -({ \ - typeof(*p) ___p1 = READ_ONCE(*p); \ - compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p); \ - smp_mb(); \ - ___p1; \ -}) - #define smp_mb__before_atomic() smp_mb__before_llsc() #define smp_mb__after_atomic() smp_llsc_mb() +#include <asm-generic/barrier.h> + #endif /* __ASM_BARRIER_H */ -- MST

Changes since v2: - extended checkpatch tests for barriers, and added patches teaching it to warn about incorrect usage of barriers (__smp_xxx barriers are for use by asm-generic code only), should help prevent misuse by arch code to address comments by Russell King - patched more instances of xen to use virt_ barriers as suggested by Stefano Stabellini - implemented a 2 byte xchg on sh

Changes since v2: - extended checkpatch tests for barriers, and added patches teaching it to warn about incorrect usage of barriers (__smp_xxx barriers are for use by asm-generic code only), should help prevent misuse by arch code to address comments by Russell King - patched more instances of xen to use virt_ barriers as suggested by Stefano Stabellini - implemented a 2 byte xchg on sh

This is really trying to cleanup some virt code, as suggested by Peter, who said > You could of course go fix that instead of mutilating things into > sort-of functional state. This work is needed for virtio, so it's probably easiest to merge it through my tree - is this fine by everyone? Arnd, if you agree, could you ack this please? Note to arch maintainers: please don't

This is really trying to cleanup some virt code, as suggested by Peter, who said > You could of course go fix that instead of mutilating things into > sort-of functional state. This work is needed for virtio, so it's probably easiest to merge it through my tree - is this fine by everyone? Arnd, if you agree, could you ack this please? Note to arch maintainers: please don't

Changes since v1: - replaced my asm-generic patch with an equivalent patch already in tip - add wrappers with virt_ prefix for better code annotation, as suggested by David Miller - dropped XXX in patch names as this makes vger choke, Cc all relevant mailing lists on all patches (not personal email, as the list becomes too long then) I parked this in vhost tree for now, but the

Changes since v1: - replaced my asm-generic patch with an equivalent patch already in tip - add wrappers with virt_ prefix for better code annotation, as suggested by David Miller - dropped XXX in patch names as this makes vger choke, Cc all relevant mailing lists on all patches (not personal email, as the list becomes too long then) I parked this in vhost tree for now, but the