search for: pv_mb

...fs in virtio? That's fundamentally what we have now. But basically the rework reduces the LOC count in kernel anyway by moving all ifdef CONFIG_SMP hacks into asm-generic. So why not let virt benefit? Or do you mean wrappers for __smp_XXX that explicitly say they are for talking to host? E.g. pv_mb() pv_rmb() etc. That sounds very reasonable to me. __smp_XXX things then become an implementation detail. > The other memory barriers in the kernel do not matter for SMP'ness > when build UP.

...fs in virtio? That's fundamentally what we have now. But basically the rework reduces the LOC count in kernel anyway by moving all ifdef CONFIG_SMP hacks into asm-generic. So why not let virt benefit? Or do you mean wrappers for __smp_XXX that explicitly say they are for talking to host? E.g. pv_mb() pv_rmb() etc. That sounds very reasonable to me. __smp_XXX things then become an implementation detail. > The other memory barriers in the kernel do not matter for SMP'ness > when build UP.

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