search for: _asm_metag_barrier_h

Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "_asm_metag_barrier_h".

2015 Dec 31
0
[PATCH v2 10/32] metag: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h
...acquire(p) \ -({ \ - typeof(*p) ___p1 = READ_ONCE(*p); \ - compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p); \ - smp_mb(); \ - ___p1; \ -}) - #define smp_mb__before_atomic() barrier() #define smp_mb__after_atomic() barrier() +#include <asm-generic/barrier.h> + #endif /* _ASM_METAG_BARRIER_H */ -- MST
2015 Dec 31
54
[PATCH v2 00/34] arch: barrier cleanup + barriers for virt
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
2015 Dec 31
54
[PATCH v2 00/34] arch: barrier cleanup + barriers for virt
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
2015 Dec 30
46
[PATCH 00/34] arch: barrier cleanup + __smp_XXX barriers for virt
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
2015 Dec 30
46
[PATCH 00/34] arch: barrier cleanup + __smp_XXX barriers for virt
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
2016 Jan 10
48
[PATCH v3 00/41] arch: barrier cleanup + barriers for virt
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
2016 Jan 10
48
[PATCH v3 00/41] arch: barrier cleanup + barriers for virt
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