On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 10:23:12PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:23:50PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 03:32:18PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > Peter, what
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:23:50PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 03:32:18PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > Peter, what do you think? How about I leave this patch as is for now?
> > > >
> > > >
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:23:50PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 03:32:18PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > Peter, what do you think? How about I leave this patch as is for now?
> > > >
> > > >
On 01/06/2016 10:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:42:35AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>> (I would have thought the presence of working QEMU support would tide us
>> over providing an easy basic regression testing environment, but people
>> keep insisting that's not real
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> That said, if you'd ack a submission, Rich already has my Acked-by line
> on a maintainers patch (AND one to remove the extra cc's from the sh
> kernel list, and I acked Chen Gang's syscall addition patch back in
>
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 03:32:18PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > Peter, what do you think? How about I leave this patch as is for now?
> > >
> > > No, and I object to removing the single byte implementation too. Either
>
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:42:35AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> (I would have thought the presence of working QEMU support would tide us
> over providing an easy basic regression testing environment, but people
> keep insisting that's not real and doesn't count. But if we can keep it
> 99% working
On 01/06/2016 08:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> SH's cmpxchg() is equally incomplete and does not provide 1 and 2 byte
> versions.
We added a new cmpxchg() in j-core (smp on sh2 was not previously a
thing), but still need to
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Peter, what do you think? How about I leave this patch as is for now?
> >
> > No, and I object to removing the single byte implementation too. Either
> > remove the full arch or fix xchg() to conform. xchg() should work on
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 12:40:23PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:19:44PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 06:27:35PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:09:47PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > At the moment,
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:19:44PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 06:27:35PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:09:47PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > At the moment, xchg on sh only supports 4 and 1 byte values, so using it
> > > from
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 06:27:35PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:09:47PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > At the moment, xchg on sh only supports 4 and 1 byte values, so using it
> > from smp_store_mb means attempts to store a 2 byte value using this
> > macro fail.
>
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 06:27:35PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:09:47PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > At the moment, xchg on sh only supports 4 and 1 byte values, so using it
> > from smp_store_mb means attempts to store a 2 byte value using this
> > macro fail.
>
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:19:44PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 06:27:35PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:09:47PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > At the moment, xchg on sh only supports 4 and 1 byte values, so using it
> > > from
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 12:40:23PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:19:44PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 06:27:35PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:09:47PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > At the moment,
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Peter, what do you think? How about I leave this patch as is for now?
> >
> > No, and I object to removing the single byte implementation too. Either
> > remove the full arch or fix xchg() to conform. xchg() should work on
On 01/06/2016 08:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> SH's cmpxchg() is equally incomplete and does not provide 1 and 2 byte
> versions.
We added a new cmpxchg() in j-core (smp on sh2 was not previously a
thing), but still need to
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 03:32:18PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > Peter, what do you think? How about I leave this patch as is for now?
> > >
> > > No, and I object to removing the single byte implementation too. Either
>
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> That said, if you'd ack a submission, Rich already has my Acked-by line
> on a maintainers patch (AND one to remove the extra cc's from the sh
> kernel list, and I acked Chen Gang's syscall addition patch back in
>
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:42:35AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> (I would have thought the presence of working QEMU support would tide us
> over providing an easy basic regression testing environment, but people
> keep insisting that's not real and doesn't count. But if we can keep it
> 99% working
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:23:50PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 03:32:18PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > Peter, what do you think? How about I leave this patch as is for now?
> > > >
> > > >
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 10:23:12PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:23:50PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 03:32:18PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > Peter, what
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:23:50PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 03:32:18PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > Peter, what do you think? How about I leave this patch as is for now?
> > > >
> > > >
On 01/06/2016 10:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:42:35AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>> (I would have thought the presence of working QEMU support would tide us
>> over providing an easy basic regression testing environment, but people
>> keep insisting that's not real
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:09:47PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> At the moment, xchg on sh only supports 4 and 1 byte values, so using it
> from smp_store_mb means attempts to store a 2 byte value using this
> macro fail.
>
> And happens to be exactly what virtio drivers want to do.
>
>
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:09:47PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> At the moment, xchg on sh only supports 4 and 1 byte values, so using it
> from smp_store_mb means attempts to store a 2 byte value using this
> macro fail.
>
> And happens to be exactly what virtio drivers want to do.
>
>
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:09:47PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> At the moment, xchg on sh only supports 4 and 1 byte values, so using it
> from smp_store_mb means attempts to store a 2 byte value using this
> macro fail.
>
> And happens to be exactly what virtio drivers want to do.
>
>
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:09:47PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> At the moment, xchg on sh only supports 4 and 1 byte values, so using it
> from smp_store_mb means attempts to store a 2 byte value using this
> macro fail.
>
> And happens to be exactly what virtio drivers want to do.
>
>
At the moment, xchg on sh only supports 4 and 1 byte values, so using it
from smp_store_mb means attempts to store a 2 byte value using this
macro fail.
And happens to be exactly what virtio drivers want to do.
Check size and fall back to a slower, but safe, WRITE_ONCE+smp_mb.
Signed-off-by:
At the moment, xchg on sh only supports 4 and 1 byte values, so using it
from smp_store_mb means attempts to store a 2 byte value using this
macro fail.
And happens to be exactly what virtio drivers want to do.
Check size and fall back to a slower, but safe, WRITE_ONCE+smp_mb.
Signed-off-by:
30 matches
Mail list logo