On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 10:23:51PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: [...] > > > > > > Sorry, I don't understand - why do you have to do anything? > > > I changed all users of smp_lwsync so they > > > use __smp_lwsync on SMP and barrier() on !SMP. > > > > > > This is exactly the current behaviour, I also tested that > > > generated code does not change at all. > > > > > > Is there a patch in your tree that conflicts with this? > > > > > > > Because in a patchset which implements atomic relaxed/acquire/release > > variants on PPC I use smp_lwsync(), this makes it have another user, > > please see this mail: > > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.ppc.embedded/89877 > > > > in definition of PPC's __atomic_op_release(). > > > > > > But I think removing smp_lwsync() is a good idea and actually I think we > > can go further to remove __smp_lwsync() and let __smp_load_acquire and > > __smp_store_release call __lwsync() directly, but that is another thing. > > > > Anyway, I will modify my patch. > > > > Regards, > > Boqun > > > Thanks! > Could you send an ack then please? > Sure, if you need one from me, feel free to add my ack for this patch: Acked-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx> Regards, Boqun
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
