search for: nudge_writ

Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "nudge_writ".

Did you mean: nudge_writes
2015 Dec 31
0
[PATCH v2 11/32] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h
...07,6 @@ #define __WEAK_LLSC_MB " \n" #endif -#define smp_store_mb(var, value) \ - do { WRITE_ONCE(var, value); smp_mb(); } while (0) - #define smp_llsc_mb() __asm__ __volatile__(__WEAK_LLSC_MB : : :"memory") #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_CAVIUM_OCTEON @@ -129,22 +121,9 @@ #define nudge_writes() mb() #endif -#define smp_store_release(p, v) \ -do { \ - compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p); \ - smp_mb(); \ - WRITE_ONCE(*p, v); \ -} while (0) - -#define smp_load_acquire(p) \ -({ \ - typeof(*p) ___p1 = READ_ONCE(*p); \ - compiletime_assert_atomic...
2016 Jan 10
0
[PATCH v3 11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h
...07,6 @@ #define __WEAK_LLSC_MB " \n" #endif -#define smp_store_mb(var, value) \ - do { WRITE_ONCE(var, value); smp_mb(); } while (0) - #define smp_llsc_mb() __asm__ __volatile__(__WEAK_LLSC_MB : : :"memory") #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_CAVIUM_OCTEON @@ -129,22 +121,9 @@ #define nudge_writes() mb() #endif -#define smp_store_release(p, v) \ -do { \ - compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p); \ - smp_mb(); \ - WRITE_ONCE(*p, v); \ -} while (0) - -#define smp_load_acquire(p) \ -({ \ - typeof(*p) ___p1 = READ_ONCE(*p); \ - compiletime_assert_atomic...
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
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