Il 16/09/2014 14:12, Andrew Jones ha scritto:
>> > Should it at least write 1 to the spinlock?
> I thought about that. So on one hand we might get a somewhat functional
> synchronization mechanism, which may be enough for some unit test that
> doesn't enable caches, but still needs it. On the other hand, we know
> its broken, so we don't really want any unit tests that need synchronization
> and don't enable caches. I chose to not write a 1 in the hope that if
> a unit test introduces a race, that that race will be easier to expose
> and fix. That said, I'm not strongly biased, as we'd still have a race,
> which may or may not be easy to expose, either way. So if the majority
> prefers a best effort approach, then I'll spin a v2.
The case I was thinking about was something like
spin_lock()
enable caches
start other processors
spin_unlock()
I'm not sure if it makes sense though. :)
Paolo
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
