Displaying 10 results from an estimated 10 matches for "wr_fence".
2016 Jan 05
1
[PATCH v2 20/32] metag: define __smp_xxx
...hanged, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/metag/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/metag/include/asm/barrier.h
> index b5b778b..84880c9 100644
> --- a/arch/metag/include/asm/barrier.h
> +++ b/arch/metag/include/asm/barrier.h
> @@ -44,13 +44,6 @@ static inline void wr_fence(void)
> #define rmb() barrier()
> #define wmb() mb()
>
> -#ifndef CONFIG_SMP
> -#define fence() do { } while (0)
> -#define smp_mb() barrier()
> -#define smp_rmb() barrier()
> -#define smp_wmb() barrier()
> -#else
!SMP kernel text differs, but o...
2016 Jan 05
1
[PATCH v2 20/32] metag: define __smp_xxx
...hanged, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/metag/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/metag/include/asm/barrier.h
> index b5b778b..84880c9 100644
> --- a/arch/metag/include/asm/barrier.h
> +++ b/arch/metag/include/asm/barrier.h
> @@ -44,13 +44,6 @@ static inline void wr_fence(void)
> #define rmb() barrier()
> #define wmb() mb()
>
> -#ifndef CONFIG_SMP
> -#define fence() do { } while (0)
> -#define smp_mb() barrier()
> -#define smp_rmb() barrier()
> -#define smp_wmb() barrier()
> -#else
!SMP kernel text differs, but o...
2015 Dec 31
0
[PATCH v2 20/32] metag: define __smp_xxx
...+++-----------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/metag/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/metag/include/asm/barrier.h
index b5b778b..84880c9 100644
--- a/arch/metag/include/asm/barrier.h
+++ b/arch/metag/include/asm/barrier.h
@@ -44,13 +44,6 @@ static inline void wr_fence(void)
#define rmb() barrier()
#define wmb() mb()
-#ifndef CONFIG_SMP
-#define fence() do { } while (0)
-#define smp_mb() barrier()
-#define smp_rmb() barrier()
-#define smp_wmb() barrier()
-#else
-
#ifdef CONFIG_METAG_SMP_WRITE_REORDERING
/*
* Write to the atomic memor...
2015 Dec 31
0
[PATCH v2 10/32] metag: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h
...----------------------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/metag/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/metag/include/asm/barrier.h
index 172b7e5..b5b778b 100644
--- a/arch/metag/include/asm/barrier.h
+++ b/arch/metag/include/asm/barrier.h
@@ -44,9 +44,6 @@ static inline void wr_fence(void)
#define rmb() barrier()
#define wmb() mb()
-#define dma_rmb() rmb()
-#define dma_wmb() wmb()
-
#ifndef CONFIG_SMP
#define fence() do { } while (0)
#define smp_mb() barrier()
@@ -81,27 +78,9 @@ static inline void fence(void)
#endif
#endif
-#define read_barrier_depends() d...
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
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