Re: x86-64 tools fix question

[Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>]

Keir Fraser wrote:

>
> On 1 Mar 2005, at 19:56, Jerone Young wrote:
>
>>     I would like to discuss is this correct, dead wrong, or even 
>> needed at
>> all?
>
>
> x86/64 has proper barrier instructions -- see 
> include/asm-x86_64/system.h in Linux. It is from there that we should 
> pull our definitions. Barrier macros are defined in a few places in 
> the tools -- we ought to pull them all into one single header 
> incorporated by all tools that need it.

I was just about to send this out myself :-)  I think the consensus was 
to put them all in xc.h.  I posted a patch recently that made everything 
include asm/system.h.  All it should take is replacing asm/system.h with 
xc.h in the patch and then making the necessary changes to xc.h.

For reference, the proper x86-64 barriers are:

#define mb()     asm volatile("mfence":::"memory")
#define rmb()    asm volatile("lfence":::"memory")
#define wmb()    asm volatile("sfence":::"memory")

Regards,
Anthony Liguori

-- 
Regards,

Anthony Liguori



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click