All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
To: Eric Chan <ericchancf@google.com>
Cc: conor.dooley@microchip.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	palmer@dabbelt.com, paul.walmsley@sifive.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] riscv/fence: Consolidate fence definitions and define __{mb,rmb,wmb}
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:38:57 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZctGwaTnEfkum50a@andrea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240212105946.1241100-1-ericchancf@google.com>

Eric,

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 10:59:46AM +0000, Eric Chan wrote:
> Disparate fence implementations are consolidated into fence.h.
> 
> Introduce __{mb,rmb,wmb}, and rely on the generic definitions
> for {mb,rmb,wmb}. A first consequence is that __{mb,rmb,wmb}
> map to a compiler barrier on !SMP (while their definition remains
> unchanged on SMP).
> 
> Introduce RISCV_FULL_BARRIER and use in arch_atomic* function.
> like RISCV_ACQUIRE_BARRIER and RISCV_RELEASE_BARRIER, The fence
> instruction can be eliminated When SMP is not enabled.
> 
> Also clean up the warning with scripts/checkpatch.pl.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Chan <ericchancf@google.com>

I suggest to split this patch into multiple patches ("one problem per
patch" and all that), say:

  1/3 - riscv/barrier: Define __{mb,rmb,wmb}
  2/3 - riscv/barrier: Define RISCV_FULL_BARRIER
  3/3 - riscv/barrier: Resolve checkpath.pl warnings

Please also review the changelog(s), since the description above (in
particular the information about __{mb,rmb,wmb}) doesn't seem to match
the code changes.

  Andrea

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
To: Eric Chan <ericchancf@google.com>
Cc: conor.dooley@microchip.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	palmer@dabbelt.com, paul.walmsley@sifive.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] riscv/fence: Consolidate fence definitions and define __{mb,rmb,wmb}
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:38:57 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZctGwaTnEfkum50a@andrea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240212105946.1241100-1-ericchancf@google.com>

Eric,

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 10:59:46AM +0000, Eric Chan wrote:
> Disparate fence implementations are consolidated into fence.h.
> 
> Introduce __{mb,rmb,wmb}, and rely on the generic definitions
> for {mb,rmb,wmb}. A first consequence is that __{mb,rmb,wmb}
> map to a compiler barrier on !SMP (while their definition remains
> unchanged on SMP).
> 
> Introduce RISCV_FULL_BARRIER and use in arch_atomic* function.
> like RISCV_ACQUIRE_BARRIER and RISCV_RELEASE_BARRIER, The fence
> instruction can be eliminated When SMP is not enabled.
> 
> Also clean up the warning with scripts/checkpatch.pl.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Chan <ericchancf@google.com>

I suggest to split this patch into multiple patches ("one problem per
patch" and all that), say:

  1/3 - riscv/barrier: Define __{mb,rmb,wmb}
  2/3 - riscv/barrier: Define RISCV_FULL_BARRIER
  3/3 - riscv/barrier: Resolve checkpath.pl warnings

Please also review the changelog(s), since the description above (in
particular the information about __{mb,rmb,wmb}) doesn't seem to match
the code changes.

  Andrea

  reply	other threads:[~2024-02-13 10:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-09 12:50 [PATCH] riscv/fence: Consolidate fence definitions and define __{mb,rmb,wmb} Eric Chan
2024-02-09 12:50 ` Eric Chan
2024-02-12  8:03 ` Conor Dooley
2024-02-12  8:03   ` Conor Dooley
2024-02-12 10:59   ` [PATCH v2] " Eric Chan
2024-02-12 10:59     ` Eric Chan
2024-02-13 10:38     ` Andrea Parri [this message]
2024-02-13 10:38       ` Andrea Parri
2024-02-13 14:57       ` Eric Chan
2024-02-13 14:57         ` Eric Chan
2024-02-13 15:03   ` [PATCH] " Eric Chan
2024-02-13 15:03     ` Eric Chan

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=ZctGwaTnEfkum50a@andrea \
    --to=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
    --cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
    --cc=conor.dooley@microchip.com \
    --cc=ericchancf@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
    --cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
    /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.