[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171205215700.GV3165@worktop.lehotels.local>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 22:57:00 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/21] drivers/vhost: Remove now-redundant
read_barrier_depends()
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:24:49PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> READ_ONCE is really all over the place (some code literally replaced all
> memory accesses with READ/WRITE ONCE).
Yeah, so? Complain to the compiler people for forcing us into that.
> Would an API like WRITE_POINTER()/smp_store_pointer make sense,
> and READ_POINTER for symmetry?
No, the whole point of the exercise was to get away from the fact that
dependent loads are special.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists