[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20151230.165908.1627575055770897057.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:59:08 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: mst@...hat.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, arnd@...db.de,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/34] arch: barrier cleanup + __smp_xxx barriers for
virt
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:36:29 +0200
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 03:46:46PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
>> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:58:19 +0200
>>
>> > -. Patch 1 documents the __smp APIs, and explains why they are
>> > useful for virt
>>
>> If virt is doing things like interacting with descriptors that are
>> shared with a (potentially SMP) host, why don't we just annotate those
>> specific cases?
>
> Using a bunch of per-arch ifdefs in virtio?
> That's fundamentally what we have now.
I was suggesting a generic interface to get what you want.
virt_mb() or something like that. You can name it something
else, that's not the important part.
> 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.
Exactly!
--
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