lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 15/32] powerpc: define __smp_xxx
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@gmail.com>

Regards,
Boqun
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-01-07 02:01    [W:0.105 / U:2.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site