On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 15:59:02 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> See each patch. My attempt at fixing whatever I did when I obviously
> didn't know enough^W about the C11 memory model, and at setting a
> better example for future generations...
Just for context. Building on this patchset, is it now time to
phase out smp_(rw)mb in favour or C11's acq/rel, as you laid
out in your KVM Forum talk [*]?
What is the plan with smp_mb_(sg)et? It's not clear to me from
the slides, but given patch 5 I don't see a reason to keep them.
Thanks,
Emilio
[*]
http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/kvmforum16-atomic2.pdf
