On 04/09/2011 03:34 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> Actually it does - see the "#ifndef CONFIG_X86_CMPXCHG" section
>>> in asm/cmpxchg_32.h.
>> Hm, OK. Still, I'm happiest with that dependency in case someone
>> knobbles the cpu to exclude cmpxchg and breaks things.
> Dropping the TSC patch is sensibl
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 11:24 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 04/08/2011 08:42 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.04.11 at 17:25, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >> On 04/07/2011 11:38 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >>> Is there any downside to this patch (is X86_CMPXCHG in the same sort of
> >>> bo
On 04/08/2011 08:42 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.04.11 at 17:25, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> On 04/07/2011 11:38 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> Is there any downside to this patch (is X86_CMPXCHG in the same sort of
>>> boat?)
>> Only if we don't use cmpxchg in shared memory with other domains
>>> On 08.04.11 at 17:25, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 04/07/2011 11:38 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> Is there any downside to this patch (is X86_CMPXCHG in the same sort of
>> boat?)
>
> Only if we don't use cmpxchg in shared memory with other domains or the
> hypervisor. (I don't think it will
