[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160103110158-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 11:12:44 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-metag@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
x86@...nel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/32] arm: define __smp_xxx
On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 11:24:38AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:07:59PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > This defines __smp_xxx barriers for arm,
> > for use by virtualization.
> >
> > smp_xxx barriers are removed as they are
> > defined correctly by asm-generic/barriers.h
> >
> > This reduces the amount of arch-specific boiler-plate code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>
> In combination with patch 14, this looks like it should result in no
> change to the resulting code.
>
> Acked-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>
>
> My only concern is that it gives people an additional handle onto a
> "new" set of barriers - just because they're prefixed with __*
> unfortunately doesn't stop anyone from using it (been there with
> other arch stuff before.)
>
> I wonder whether we should consider making the smp memory barriers
> inline functions, so these __smp_xxx() variants can be undef'd
> afterwards, thereby preventing drivers getting their hands on these
> new macros?
That'd be tricky to do cleanly since asm-generic depends on
ifndef to add generic variants where needed.
But it would be possible to add a checkpatch test for this.
> --
> RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/
> FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
> according to speedtest.net.
--
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