search for: ee663c4

...oid virtio_store_mb(bool weak_barriers, + __virtio16 *p, __virtio16 v) +{ + if (weak_barriers) + virt_store_mb(*p, v); + else + { + WRITE_ONCE(*p, v); + mb(); + } +} + struct virtio_device; struct virtqueue; diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c index ee663c4..e12e385 100644 --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c @@ -517,10 +517,10 @@ void *virtqueue_get_buf(struct virtqueue *_vq, unsigned int *len) /* If we expect an interrupt for the next entry, tell host * by writing event index and flush out the write before *...

...v) +{ + if (!weak_barriers) { + wmb(); + WRITE_ONCE(*p, v); + return; + } +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP + smp_store_release(p, v); +#else + dma_wmb(); + WRITE_ONCE(*p, v); +#endif +} + struct virtio_device; struct virtqueue; diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c index ee663c4..f822cab 100644 --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c @@ -244,11 +244,11 @@ static inline int virtqueue_add(struct virtqueue *_vq, avail = vq->avail_idx_shadow & (vq->vring.num - 1); vq->vring.avail->ring[avail] = cpu_to_virtio16(_vq->vdev, hea...

...v) +{ + if (!weak_barriers) { + wmb(); + WRITE_ONCE(*p, v); + return; + } +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP + smp_store_release(p, v); +#else + dma_wmb(); + WRITE_ONCE(*p, v); +#endif +} + struct virtio_device; struct virtqueue; diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c index ee663c4..f822cab 100644 --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c @@ -244,11 +244,11 @@ static inline int virtqueue_add(struct virtqueue *_vq, avail = vq->avail_idx_shadow & (vq->vring.num - 1); vq->vring.avail->ring[avail] = cpu_to_virtio16(_vq->vdev, hea...

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

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