search for: __lwsync

...ertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > index 980ad0c..c0deafc 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > @@ -44,19 +44,11 @@ > #define dma_rmb() __lwsync() > #define dma_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") > > -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > -#define smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > +#define __smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > so __smp_lwsync() is always mapped to lwsync, right? > -#define smp_mb() mb() >...

...ertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > index 980ad0c..c0deafc 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > @@ -44,19 +44,11 @@ > #define dma_rmb() __lwsync() > #define dma_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") > > -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > -#define smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > +#define __smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > so __smp_lwsync() is always mapped to lwsync, right? > -#define smp_mb() mb() >...

...a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > > > index 980ad0c..c0deafc 100644 > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > > > @@ -44,19 +44,11 @@ > > > #define dma_rmb() __lwsync() > > > #define dma_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") > > > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > > -#define smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > > > +#define __smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > > > > > > > so __s...

...a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > > > index 980ad0c..c0deafc 100644 > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > > > @@ -44,19 +44,11 @@ > > > #define dma_rmb() __lwsync() > > > #define dma_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") > > > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > > -#define smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > > > +#define __smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > > > > > > > so __s...

...------------ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h index 980ad0c..c0deafc 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h @@ -44,19 +44,11 @@ #define dma_rmb() __lwsync() #define dma_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP -#define smp_lwsync() __lwsync() +#define __smp_lwsync() __lwsync() -#define smp_mb() mb() -#define smp_rmb() __lwsync() -#define smp_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB)...

...t; > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > > index 980ad0c..c0deafc 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > > @@ -44,19 +44,11 @@ > > #define dma_rmb() __lwsync() > > #define dma_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > -#define smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > > +#define __smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > > > > so __smp_lwsync() is always mapped to lwsync,...

...m/barrier.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > > > > index 980ad0c..c0deafc 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > > > > @@ -44,19 +44,11 @@ > > > > #define dma_rmb() __lwsync() > > > > #define dma_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") > > > > > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > > > -#define smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > > > > +#define __smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > > > >...

...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 > > > > > > WRITE_ONCE(*p, v); \ > > > > > } while (0) > > > > > > > > > > -#define smp_load_acquire(p) \ > > > > >...

...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 > > > > > > WRITE_ONCE(*p, v); \ > > > > > } while (0) > > > > > > > > > > -#define smp_load_acquire(p) \ > > > > >...

...e.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 Thanks! Could you send an ack then please? > > > > > > > > WRITE_ONCE(*p, v); \ > > > > > > } while (0) > > > > > &gt...

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

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 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