search for: data_barri

...MP */ > +#define __smp_mb() mb() > +#define __smp_rmb() __lwsync() > +#define __smp_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") > > /* > * This is a barrier which prevents following instructions from being > @@ -67,18 +59,18 @@ > #define data_barrier(x) \ > asm volatile("twi 0,%0,0; isync" : : "r" (x) : "memory"); > > -#define smp_store_release(p, v) \ > +#define __smp_store_release(p, v) \ > do { \ > compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p); \ > - smp_lwsync(); \...

...MP */ > +#define __smp_mb() mb() > +#define __smp_rmb() __lwsync() > +#define __smp_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") > > /* > * This is a barrier which prevents following instructions from being > @@ -67,18 +59,18 @@ > #define data_barrier(x) \ > asm volatile("twi 0,%0,0; isync" : : "r" (x) : "memory"); > > -#define smp_store_release(p, v) \ > +#define __smp_store_release(p, v) \ > do { \ > compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p); \ > - smp_lwsync(); \...

...) __lwsync() > > > +#define __smp_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") > > > > > > /* > > > * This is a barrier which prevents following instructions from being > > > @@ -67,18 +59,18 @@ > > > #define data_barrier(x) \ > > > asm volatile("twi 0,%0,0; isync" : : "r" (x) : "memory"); > > > > > > -#define smp_store_release(p, v) \ > > > +#define __smp_store_release(p, v) \ > > > do { \ > > > compiletim...

...) __lwsync() > > > +#define __smp_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") > > > > > > /* > > > * This is a barrier which prevents following instructions from being > > > @@ -67,18 +59,18 @@ > > > #define data_barrier(x) \ > > > asm volatile("twi 0,%0,0; isync" : : "r" (x) : "memory"); > > > > > > -#define smp_store_release(p, v) \ > > > +#define __smp_store_release(p, v) \ > > > do { \ > > > compiletim...

...smp_wmb() barrier() -#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */ +#define __smp_mb() mb() +#define __smp_rmb() __lwsync() +#define __smp_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") /* * This is a barrier which prevents following instructions from being @@ -67,18 +59,18 @@ #define data_barrier(x) \ asm volatile("twi 0,%0,0; isync" : : "r" (x) : "memory"); -#define smp_store_release(p, v) \ +#define __smp_store_release(p, v) \ do { \ compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p); \ - smp_lwsync(); \ + __smp_lwsync(); \ WRITE_O...

...> > +#define __smp_rmb() __lwsync() > > +#define __smp_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") > > > > /* > > * This is a barrier which prevents following instructions from being > > @@ -67,18 +59,18 @@ > > #define data_barrier(x) \ > > asm volatile("twi 0,%0,0; isync" : : "r" (x) : "memory"); > > > > -#define smp_store_release(p, v) \ > > +#define __smp_store_release(p, v) \ > > do { \ > > compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p); \...

...t; +#define __smp_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") > > > > > > > > /* > > > > * This is a barrier which prevents following instructions from being > > > > @@ -67,18 +59,18 @@ > > > > #define data_barrier(x) \ > > > > asm volatile("twi 0,%0,0; isync" : : "r" (x) : "memory"); > > > > > > > > -#define smp_store_release(p, v) \ > > > > +#define __smp_store_release(p, v) \ > > > > do { \ &g...

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