[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YPeBKqIS+OTrVKBO@google.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 11:06:34 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/4] arm64: do not use dummy vcpu_is_preempted()
On (21/07/12 16:47), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > #include <asm/qspinlock.h>
> > #include <asm/qrwlock.h>
> > +#include <asm/paravirt.h>
> >
> > /* See include/linux/spinlock.h */
> > #define smp_mb__after_spinlock() smp_mb()
> >
> > -/*
> > - * Changing this will break osq_lock() thanks to the call inside
> > - * smp_cond_load_relaxed().
> > - *
> > - * See:
> > - * https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200110100612.GC2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
> > - */
>
> Why are you deleting this? Please explain your reasoning in the commit
> message. It seems to me that it still makes complete sense when
> CONFIG_PARAVIRT is not defined.
You are right. I'll move it to !PARAVIRT #else-branch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists