[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120509201223.GB22743@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 23:12:24 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops: add _local bitops
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 01:10:04PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 01:07 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > In practice ATM any of the above will work. We probably don't even need
> > to add barrier() calls since what we do afterwards is apic access which
> > has an optimization barrier anyway. But I'm fine with adding them in
> > there just in case if that's what people want.
> >
>
> If you have the optimization barrier anyway, then I'd be fine with you
> just using __test_and_clear_bit() and add to a comment in
> arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h that KVM needs it to be locally atomic.
>
> -hpa
Sounds good. Avi?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists