Hi Julien, > On 5 Sep 2022, at 17:55, Julien Grall <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 05/09/2022 17:49, Rahul Singh wrote: >> Hi Julien, > > Hi Rahul, > >>> On 5 Sep 2022, at 5:37 pm, Julien Grall <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 05/09/2022 17:30, Rahul Singh wrote: >>>> From: Zhou Wang <[email protected]> >>>> Backport Linux commit a76a37777f2c. Rename __iomb to iomb() while >>>> merging to get in sync with other Xen definitions. >>>> Reading the 'prod' MMIO register in order to determine whether or >>>> not there is valid data beyond 'cons' for a given queue does not >>>> provide sufficient dependency ordering, as the resulting access is >>>> address dependent only on 'cons' and can therefore be speculated >>>> ahead of time, potentially allowing stale data to be read by the >>>> CPU. >>>> Use readl() instead of readl_relaxed() when updating the shadow copy >>>> of the 'prod' pointer, so that all speculated memory reads from the >>>> corresponding queue can occur only from valid slots. >>>> Signed-off-by: Zhou Wang <[email protected]> >>>> Link: >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] >>>> [will: Use readl() instead of explicit barrier. Update 'cons' side to >>>> match.] >>>> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <[email protected]> >>>> Origin: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git >>>> a76a37777f2c >>>> Signed-off-by: Rahul Singh <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> Changes in v3: >>>> - rename __iomb() to iomb() and also move it from common file to >>>> smmu-v3.c file >>> >>> Hmmm... Quoting Bertrand: >>> >>> "We need the __iomb as “linux compatibility” in fact so I would suggest for >>> now to only introduce it at the beginning of smmu-v3.c with other linux >>> compatibility stuff to prevent adding this to Xen overall." >>> >>> Which I also agreed. I couldn't a more recent conversation explaining your >>> approach. Can you outline why you didn't follow the approached discussed? >>> >> I am really sorry that I missed the naming and when I made the patch in my >> mind there was a comment from Stefano to >> rename the __iomb() to iomb(). I will send only this patch after fixing or >> do you want me to send the whole series? > > I would be fine if you only resend this patch. > > Also, looking at the other patches, you added the Acked-by before your > Signed-off-by. In general, the tags are ordered chronologically, so this > should be inverted. I can deal with that on commit once Bertrand confirmed he > is happy with the series.
With the acked-by needing to be moved and the iomb part, it will make your life easier if Rahul just resend the serie so Rahul please send a v4. Cheers Bertrand > > Cheers, > > -- > Julien Grall
