[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0a78eded-6c08-8d32-ec31-d62d6feb2118@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 08:32:52 -0400
From: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>
To: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
"Ruhl, Michael J" <michael.j.ruhl@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Marciniszyn, Mike" <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] IB/hfi1: Fix improper uses of smp_mb__before_atomic()
On 5/9/2019 5:12 PM, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 01:16:57AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>>>> This barrier only applies to the read-modify-write operations; in
>>>> particular, it does not apply to the atomic_read() primitive.
>>>>
>>>> Replace the barrier with an smp_mb().
>>>
>>> This is one of a couple of barrier issues that we are currently looking into.
>>>
>>> See:
>>>
>>> [PATCH for-next 6/9] IB/rdmavt: Add new completion inline
>>>
>>> We will take a look at this one as well.
>>
>> Thank you for the reference and for looking into this,
>
> So, I'm planning to just drop this patch; or can I do something to help?
>
> Please let me know.
Mike was looking into this, and I've got a handful of patches from him
to review. He's unavailable for a while but if it's not included in the
patches I've got we'll get something out shortly. So yes I think we can
hold off on this patch for now. Thanks.
-Denny
Powered by blists - more mailing lists