[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h
- To: Leonid Yegoshin <Leonid.Yegoshin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:27:11 +0100
- Cc: linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>, will.deacon@xxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>, linux-sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>, linux-xtensa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, james.hogan@xxxxxxxxxx, user-mode-linux-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, adi-buildroot-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ddaney.cavm@xxxxxxxxx, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-metag@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:28:07 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 05:14:14PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> This statement doesn't fit MIPS barriers variations. Moreover, there is a
> reason to extend that even more specific, at least for smp_store_release and
> smp_load_acquire, look into
>
> http://patchwork.linux-mips.org/patch/10506/
Dude, that's one horrible patch.
1) you do not make such things selectable; either the hardware needs
them or it doesn't. If it does you _must_ use them, however unlikely.
2) the changelog _completely_ fails to explain the sync 0x11 and sync
0x12 semantics nor does it provide a publicly accessible link to
documentation that does.
3) it really should have explained what you did with
smp_llsc_mb/smp_mb__before_llsc() in _detail_.
And I agree that ideally it should be split into parts.
Seriously, this is _NOT_ OK.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
