Am 06/12/2022 um 14:55 schrieb Maxim Levitsky:
> On Thu, 2022-12-01 at 14:46 +0100, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
>>
>> Am 22/11/2022 um 17:11 schrieb Maxim Levitsky:
>>> This removes a layer of indirection which is strictly
>>> speaking not needed since its x86 code anyway.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> lib/x86/processor.h | 19 +++++-----------
>>> lib/x86/smp.c | 2 +-
>>> x86/apic.c | 2 +-
>>> x86/asyncpf.c | 6 ++---
>>> x86/eventinj.c | 22 +++++++++---------
>>> x86/hyperv_connections.c | 2 +-
>>> x86/hyperv_stimer.c | 4 ++--
>>> x86/hyperv_synic.c | 6 ++---
>>> x86/intel-iommu.c | 2 +-
>>> x86/ioapic.c | 14 ++++++------
>>> x86/pmu.c | 4 ++--
>>> x86/svm.c | 4 ++--
>>> x86/svm_tests.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>>> x86/taskswitch2.c | 4 ++--
>>> x86/tscdeadline_latency.c | 4 ++--
>>> x86/vmexit.c | 18 +++++++--------
>>> x86/vmx_tests.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>> 17 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 105 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/x86/processor.h b/lib/x86/processor.h
>>> index 7a9e8c82..b89f6a7c 100644
>>> --- a/lib/x86/processor.h
>>> +++ b/lib/x86/processor.h
>>> @@ -653,11 +653,17 @@ static inline void pause(void)
>>> asm volatile ("pause");
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/* Disable interrupts as per x86 spec */
>>> static inline void cli(void)
>>> {
>>> asm volatile ("cli");
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * Enable interrupts.
>>> + * Note that next instruction after sti will not have interrupts
>>> + * evaluated due to concept of 'interrupt shadow'
>>> + */
>>> static inline void sti(void)
>>> {
>>> asm volatile ("sti");
>>> @@ -732,19 +738,6 @@ static inline void wrtsc(u64 tsc)
>>> wrmsr(MSR_IA32_TSC, tsc);
>>> }
>>>
>>> -static inline void irq_disable(void)
>>> -{
>>> - asm volatile("cli");
>>> -}
>>> -
>>> -/* Note that irq_enable() does not ensure an interrupt shadow due
>>> - * to the vagaries of compiler optimizations. If you need the
>>> - * shadow, use a single asm with "sti" and the instruction after it.
>> Minor nitpick: instead of a new doc comment, why not use this same
>> above? Looks clearer to me.
>>
>> Regardless,
>> Reviewed-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>
> I am not 100% sure what you mean.
> Note that cli() doesn't have the same interrupt window thing as sti().
>
I mean replacing
>>> +/*
>>> + * Enable interrupts.
>>> + * Note that next instruction after sti will not have interrupts
>>> + * evaluated due to concept of 'interrupt shadow'
>>> + */
with
>>> -/* Note that irq_enable() does not ensure an interrupt shadow due
>>> - * to the vagaries of compiler optimizations. If you need the
>>> - * shadow, use a single asm with "sti" and the instruction after it.
Emanuele
