Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "__atomic_op_release".
2016 Jan 06
2
[PATCH v2 15/32] powerpc: define __smp_xxx
...h in your tree that conflicts with this?
>
Because in a patchset which implements atomic relaxed/acquire/release
variants on PPC I use smp_lwsync(), this makes it have another user,
please see this mail:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.ppc.embedded/89877
in definition of PPC's __atomic_op_release().
But I think removing smp_lwsync() is a good idea and actually I think we
can go further to remove __smp_lwsync() and let __smp_load_acquire and
__smp_store_release call __lwsync() directly, but that is another thing.
Anyway, I will modify my patch.
Regards,
Boqun
>
> > > > &...
2016 Jan 06
2
[PATCH v2 15/32] powerpc: define __smp_xxx
...h in your tree that conflicts with this?
>
Because in a patchset which implements atomic relaxed/acquire/release
variants on PPC I use smp_lwsync(), this makes it have another user,
please see this mail:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.ppc.embedded/89877
in definition of PPC's __atomic_op_release().
But I think removing smp_lwsync() is a good idea and actually I think we
can go further to remove __smp_lwsync() and let __smp_load_acquire and
__smp_store_release call __lwsync() directly, but that is another thing.
Anyway, I will modify my patch.
Regards,
Boqun
>
> > > > &...
2016 Jan 06
0
[PATCH v2 15/32] powerpc: define __smp_xxx
...>
>
> Because in a patchset which implements atomic relaxed/acquire/release
> variants on PPC I use smp_lwsync(), this makes it have another user,
> please see this mail:
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.ppc.embedded/89877
>
> in definition of PPC's __atomic_op_release().
>
>
> But I think removing smp_lwsync() is a good idea and actually I think we
> can go further to remove __smp_lwsync() and let __smp_load_acquire and
> __smp_store_release call __lwsync() directly, but that is another thing.
>
> Anyway, I will modify my patch.
>
>...
2016 Jan 05
2
[PATCH v2 15/32] powerpc: define __smp_xxx
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 10:51:17AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 09:36:55AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:07:42PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > This defines __smp_xxx barriers for powerpc
> > > for use by virtualization.
> > >
> > > smp_xxx barriers are
2016 Jan 05
2
[PATCH v2 15/32] powerpc: define __smp_xxx
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 10:51:17AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 09:36:55AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:07:42PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > This defines __smp_xxx barriers for powerpc
> > > for use by virtualization.
> > >
> > > smp_xxx barriers are