search for: smp_lwsync

...> > > for use by virtualization. > > > > > > smp_xxx barriers are removed as they are > > > defined correctly by asm-generic/barriers.h > > I think this is the part that was missed in review. > Yes, I realized my mistake after reread the series. But smp_lwsync() is not defined in asm-generic/barriers.h, right? > > > This reduces the amount of arch-specific boiler-plate code. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> > > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> > > > --...

...> > > for use by virtualization. > > > > > > smp_xxx barriers are removed as they are > > > defined correctly by asm-generic/barriers.h > > I think this is the part that was missed in review. > Yes, I realized my mistake after reread the series. But smp_lwsync() is not defined in asm-generic/barriers.h, right? > > > This reduces the amount of arch-specific boiler-plate code. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> > > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> > > > --...

On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 06:16:48PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: [snip] > > > > Another thing is that smp_lwsync() may have a third user(other than > > > > smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release()): > > > > > > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.ppc.embedded/89877 > > > > > > > > I'm OK to change my patch accordingly, but do we re...

On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 06:16:48PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: [snip] > > > > Another thing is that smp_lwsync() may have a third user(other than > > > > smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release()): > > > > > > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.ppc.embedded/89877 > > > > > > > > I'm OK to change my patch accordingly, but do we re...

...c 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > @@ -44,19 +44,11 @@ > #define dma_rmb() __lwsync() > #define dma_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") > > -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > -#define smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > +#define __smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > so __smp_lwsync() is always mapped to lwsync, right? > -#define smp_mb() mb() > -#define smp_rmb() __lwsync() > -#define smp_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") > -#else > -#define s...

...c 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > @@ -44,19 +44,11 @@ > #define dma_rmb() __lwsync() > #define dma_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") > > -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > -#define smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > +#define __smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > so __smp_lwsync() is always mapped to lwsync, right? > -#define smp_mb() mb() > -#define smp_rmb() __lwsync() > -#define smp_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") > -#else > -#define s...

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:51:52AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 06:16:48PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > [snip] > > > > > Another thing is that smp_lwsync() may have a third user(other than > > > > > smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release()): > > > > > > > > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.ppc.embedded/89877 > > > > > > > > > > I'm OK to change my patch...

...n. > > > > > > > > smp_xxx barriers are removed as they are > > > > defined correctly by asm-generic/barriers.h > > > > I think this is the part that was missed in review. > > > > Yes, I realized my mistake after reread the series. But smp_lwsync() is > not defined in asm-generic/barriers.h, right? It isn't because as far as I could tell it is not used outside arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h smp_store_release and smp_load_acquire. And these are now gone. Instead there are __smp_store_release and __smp_load_acquire which call __...

...clude/asm/barrier.h > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h > > @@ -44,19 +44,11 @@ > > #define dma_rmb() __lwsync() > > #define dma_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > -#define smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > > +#define __smp_lwsync() __lwsync() > > > > so __smp_lwsync() is always mapped to lwsync, right? Yes. > > -#define smp_mb() mb() > > -#define smp_rmb() __lwsync() > > -#define smp_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"...

...lude/asm/barrier.h index 980ad0c..c0deafc 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h @@ -44,19 +44,11 @@ #define dma_rmb() __lwsync() #define dma_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP -#define smp_lwsync() __lwsync() +#define __smp_lwsync() __lwsync() -#define smp_mb() mb() -#define smp_rmb() __lwsync() -#define smp_wmb() __asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(SMPWMB) : : :"memory") -#else -#define smp_lwsync() barrier() - -#define smp_mb() barrier() -#define smp_rmb() barrier() -#define...

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

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