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