From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 904E1C433E6 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:39:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B78A64E7B for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:39:11 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2B78A64E7B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.82659.152613 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l930B-0001Bc-ST; Mon, 08 Feb 2021 09:38:39 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 82659.152613; Mon, 08 Feb 2021 09:38:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l930B-0001BT-Lc; Mon, 08 Feb 2021 09:38:39 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 82659; Mon, 08 Feb 2021 09:38:38 +0000 Received: from all-amaz-eas1.inumbo.com ([34.197.232.57] helo=us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l930A-0001BN-1K for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2021 09:38:38 +0000 Received: from mx2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.15]) by us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 79c6eac7-0d17-4fae-b7f6-f9abd47d8d78; Mon, 08 Feb 2021 09:38:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDB9AD62; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:38:34 +0000 (UTC) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" X-Inumbo-ID: 79c6eac7-0d17-4fae-b7f6-f9abd47d8d78 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1612777114; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Ey4KeQ4wI8Ow8TBhYfMVHQwpaYnFFEiIsiUIit12DQc=; b=X3B/SXktu9OMTy3gCQxKfATO0YpQH5xheJaVU3VFlUCboSnM0ZJ3XMUnFDT4Nb0M3RXbQt /XfS7+BQnhF2x43SmgC72bRa4C5wB08RgIEcwa/NPXW0LO5bxZTYw4zykSZJ6+jMUiEnYr rCEC9iNZdEEoaRqQbhVaGX7lqbQvV44= Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] xen/evtch: use smp barriers for user event ring To: Juergen Gross Cc: Boris Ostrovsky , Stefano Stabellini , Andrew Cooper , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org References: <20210206104932.29064-1-jgross@suse.com> <20210206104932.29064-7-jgross@suse.com> From: Jan Beulich Message-ID: <5cef0d0e-8f03-7cd2-4246-268a67a87dc5@suse.com> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 10:38:33 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210206104932.29064-7-jgross@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 06.02.2021 11:49, Juergen Gross wrote: > The ring buffer for user events is used in the local system only, so > smp barriers are fine for ensuring consistency. > > Reported-by: Andrew Cooper > Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich Albeit I think "local system" is at least ambiguous (physical machine? VM?). How about something like "is local to the given kernel instance"? Jan