From: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 0/7] [RESEND] [net] intel: Use smp_rmb rather than read_barrier_depends
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:01:12 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171116140112.00007c89@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f360a8cd-518c-1df5-5ffd-91a0e9688ce2@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:03:02 -0600
Brian King <brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> I did think about changing the powerpc definition of read_barrier_depends,
> but after reading up on that barrier, decided it was not the correct barrier
> to be used in this context. Here is some good historical background on
> read_barrier_depends that I found, along with an example.
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/5159/
>
> Since there is no data-dependency in the code in question here, I think
> the smp_rmb is the proper barrier to use.
Hey Brian, thanks for the explanation, I'll agree with you and Alex
that the smb_rmb replacement is okay. Does your test still pass
without the ->skb NULLs?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
To: Brian King <brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>, <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
<brking@pobox.com>, <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>,
<dipankar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <michaele@au1.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 0/7] [RESEND] [net] intel: Use smp_rmb rather than read_barrier_depends
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:01:12 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171116140112.00007c89@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f360a8cd-518c-1df5-5ffd-91a0e9688ce2@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:03:02 -0600
Brian King <brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> I did think about changing the powerpc definition of read_barrier_depends,
> but after reading up on that barrier, decided it was not the correct barrier
> to be used in this context. Here is some good historical background on
> read_barrier_depends that I found, along with an example.
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/5159/
>
> Since there is no data-dependency in the code in question here, I think
> the smp_rmb is the proper barrier to use.
Hey Brian, thanks for the explanation, I'll agree with you and Alex
that the smb_rmb replacement is okay. Does your test still pass
without the ->skb NULLs?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-16 22:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-16 15:37 [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 0/7] [RESEND] [net] intel: Use smp_rmb rather than read_barrier_depends Brian King
2017-11-16 15:37 ` Brian King
2017-11-16 15:37 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 1/7] ixgbe: Fix skb list corruption on Power systems Brian King
2017-11-16 15:37 ` Brian King
2017-11-16 15:37 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 2/7] i40e: Use smp_rmb rather than read_barrier_depends Brian King
2017-11-16 15:37 ` Brian King
2017-11-16 15:37 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 3/7] ixgbevf: " Brian King
2017-11-16 15:37 ` Brian King
2017-11-16 15:37 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 4/7] igbvf: " Brian King
2017-11-16 15:37 ` Brian King
2017-11-16 15:37 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 5/7] igb: " Brian King
2017-11-16 15:37 ` Brian King
2017-11-16 15:37 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 6/7] fm10k: " Brian King
2017-11-16 15:37 ` Brian King
2017-11-16 15:37 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 7/7] i40evf: " Brian King
2017-11-16 15:37 ` Brian King
2017-11-16 19:33 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 0/7] [RESEND] [net] intel: " Jesse Brandeburg
2017-11-16 19:33 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2017-11-16 20:03 ` Brian King
2017-11-16 20:03 ` Brian King
2017-11-16 21:09 ` Duyck, Alexander H
2017-11-16 21:09 ` Duyck, Alexander H
2017-11-16 21:09 ` Duyck, Alexander H
2017-11-16 22:01 ` Jesse Brandeburg [this message]
2017-11-16 22:01 ` Jesse Brandeburg
2017-11-16 22:57 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-11-16 22:57 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-11-17 16:16 ` Brian King
2017-11-17 16:16 ` Brian King
2017-11-17 16:50 ` Duyck, Alexander H
2017-11-17 16:50 ` Duyck, Alexander H
2017-11-17 16:50 ` Duyck, Alexander H
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171116140112.00007c89@intel.com \
--to=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.