From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 01/17] x86: intel-iommu: add vt-d init test
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:42:31 -0500
Message-ID: <20161108174231.GI2793@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
References: <1477468040-21034-1-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com>
 <1477468040-21034-2-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20161108105234.GG10472@agordeev.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com>
 <20161108152418.GD2793@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
 <20161108174034.GB10352@agordeev.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, drjones@redhat.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com,
        jan.kiszka@web.de, pbonzini@redhat.com
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34448 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751243AbcKHRme (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:42:34 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161108174034.GB10352@agordeev.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 06:40:35PM +0100, Alexander Gordeev wrote:

[...]

> > Looks like Linux is using memory barrior and volatile keywords to do
> > the protection (build_mmio_read() for x86). I think at least I can add
> > volatile here for each read/write to make it safer. Do you think
> > that'll suffice here? E.g.:
> > 
> >   static inline uint64_t vtd_readq(unsigned int reg)
> >   {
> >       return *(volatile uint64_t *)(Q35_HOST_BRIDGE_IOMMU_ADDR + reg);
> >   }
> 
> Yeah, I think with volatile it is better. But I am still missing
> why not just use read/write which already exist and use volatile:
> 
> static inline u64 __raw_readq(const volatile void *addr)
> {
> 	assert(sizeof(unsigned long) == sizeof(u64));
> 	return *(const volatile u64 *)addr;
> }

That's nice! I'll use it. Thanks,

-- peterx