search for: lcoke

Displaying 16 results from an estimated 16 matches for "lcoke".

Did you mean: loke
2016 Jan 10
0
[PATCH v3 01/41] lcoking/barriers, arch: Use smp barriers in smp_store_release()
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave at stgolabs.net> With commit b92b8b35a2e ("locking/arch: Rename set_mb() to smp_store_mb()") it was made clear that the context of this call (and thus set_mb) is strictly for CPU ordering, as opposed to IO. As such all archs should use the smp variant of mb(), respecting the semantics and saving a mandatory barrier on UP. Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso
2016 Jan 12
1
[PATCH v3 01/41] lcoking/barriers, arch: Use smp barriers in smp_store_release()
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 04:16:32PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave at stgolabs.net> > > With commit b92b8b35a2e ("locking/arch: Rename set_mb() to smp_store_mb()") > it was made clear that the context of this call (and thus set_mb) > is strictly for CPU ordering, as opposed to IO. As such all archs > should use the smp variant of
2016 Jan 12
1
[PATCH v3 01/41] lcoking/barriers, arch: Use smp barriers in smp_store_release()
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 04:16:32PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave at stgolabs.net> > > With commit b92b8b35a2e ("locking/arch: Rename set_mb() to smp_store_mb()") > it was made clear that the context of this call (and thus set_mb) > is strictly for CPU ordering, as opposed to IO. As such all archs > should use the smp variant of
2015 Dec 30
2
[PATCH 08/34] asm-generic: smp_store_mb should use smp_mb
On Wednesday 30 December 2015 15:24:47 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > asm-generic variant of smp_store_mb() calls mb() which is stronger > than implied by both the name and the documentation. > > smp_store_mb is only used by core kernel code at the moment, so > we know no one mis-uses it for an MMIO barrier. > Make it call smp_mb consistently before some arch-specific > code
2015 Dec 30
2
[PATCH 08/34] asm-generic: smp_store_mb should use smp_mb
On Wednesday 30 December 2015 15:24:47 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > asm-generic variant of smp_store_mb() calls mb() which is stronger > than implied by both the name and the documentation. > > smp_store_mb is only used by core kernel code at the moment, so > we know no one mis-uses it for an MMIO barrier. > Make it call smp_mb consistently before some arch-specific > code
2016 Jan 13
3
[PULL] virtio: barrier rework+fixes
The following changes since commit afd2ff9b7e1b367172f18ba7f693dfb62bdcb2dc: Linux 4.4 (2016-01-10 15:01:32 -0800) are available in the git repository at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git tags/for_linus for you to fetch changes up to 43e361f23c49dbddf74f56ddf6cdd85c5dbff6da: checkpatch: add virt barriers (2016-01-12 20:47:08 +0200)
2016 Jan 13
3
[PULL] virtio: barrier rework+fixes
The following changes since commit afd2ff9b7e1b367172f18ba7f693dfb62bdcb2dc: Linux 4.4 (2016-01-10 15:01:32 -0800) are available in the git repository at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git tags/for_linus for you to fetch changes up to 43e361f23c49dbddf74f56ddf6cdd85c5dbff6da: checkpatch: add virt barriers (2016-01-12 20:47:08 +0200)
2015 Dec 30
0
[PATCH 08/34] asm-generic: smp_store_mb should use smp_mb
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 02:44:21PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 30 December 2015 15:24:47 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > asm-generic variant of smp_store_mb() calls mb() which is stronger > > than implied by both the name and the documentation. > > > > smp_store_mb is only used by core kernel code at the moment, so > > we know no one mis-uses it for
2016 Jan 18
0
virtio pull for 4.5 (was Re: [PULL] virtio: barrier rework+fixes)
Hi Linus, Just making sure nothing's wrong with this pull request. If there's an issue, pls let me know! Thanks! On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 06:28:55PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > The following changes since commit afd2ff9b7e1b367172f18ba7f693dfb62bdcb2dc: > > Linux 4.4 (2016-01-10 15:01:32 -0800) > > are available in the git repository at: > >
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
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
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
2003 Dec 01
0
No subject
Please note that Windows 9x clients are not true members of a domain for reasons outlined in this article. Therefore the protocol for support Windows 9x style domain logons is completely different from NT4 domain logons and has been officially supported for some time. Did you read this document? Let me know what needs to be updated and i will take care of it. Cheers, jerry