From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/32] arm: define __smp_xxx Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 22:39:19 +0200 Message-ID: <20160104223529-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> References: <1451572003-2440-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1451572003-2440-18-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20160102112438.GU8644@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20160103110158-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20160104133658.GY6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160104135420.GS6373@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160104135420.GS6373@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-ia64-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Cooper , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Stefano Stabellini , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , David Miller , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, x86@kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Ingo Molnar , Tony Lindgren List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 02:54:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 02:36:58PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 11:12:44AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 11:24:38AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > > > My only concern is that it gives people an additional handle onto a > > > > "new" set of barriers - just because they're prefixed with __* > > > > unfortunately doesn't stop anyone from using it (been there with > > > > other arch stuff before.) > > > > > > > > I wonder whether we should consider making the smp memory barriers > > > > inline functions, so these __smp_xxx() variants can be undef'd > > > > afterwards, thereby preventing drivers getting their hands on these > > > > new macros? > > > > > > That'd be tricky to do cleanly since asm-generic depends on > > > ifndef to add generic variants where needed. > > > > > > But it would be possible to add a checkpatch test for this. > > > > Wasn't the whole purpose of these things for 'drivers' (namely > > virtio/xen hypervisor interaction) to use these? > > Ah, I see, you add virt_*mb() stuff later on for that use case. > > So, assuming everybody does include asm-generic/barrier.h, you could > simply #undef the __smp version at the end of that, once we've generated > all the regular primitives from it, no? Maybe I misunderstand, but I don't think so: ------> #define __smp_xxx FOO #define smp_xxx __smp_xxx #undef __smp_xxx smp_xxx <------ resolves to __smp_xxx, not FOO. That's why I went the checkpatch way. -- MST From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50325 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751431AbcADUj2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2016 15:39:28 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 22:39:19 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/32] arm: define __smp_xxx Message-ID: <20160104223529-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> References: <1451572003-2440-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1451572003-2440-18-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20160102112438.GU8644@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20160103110158-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20160104133658.GY6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160104135420.GS6373@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160104135420.GS6373@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Cooper , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Stefano Stabellini , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , David Miller , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, x86@kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Ingo Molnar , Tony Lindgren , Andrey Konovalov Message-ID: <20160104203919.hTKlt3BRKWHSUxfAKKnxvkyR_NgTuXOa5f11aySBsNw@z> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 02:54:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 02:36:58PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 11:12:44AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 11:24:38AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > > > My only concern is that it gives people an additional handle onto a > > > > "new" set of barriers - just because they're prefixed with __* > > > > unfortunately doesn't stop anyone from using it (been there with > > > > other arch stuff before.) > > > > > > > > I wonder whether we should consider making the smp memory barriers > > > > inline functions, so these __smp_xxx() variants can be undef'd > > > > afterwards, thereby preventing drivers getting their hands on these > > > > new macros? > > > > > > That'd be tricky to do cleanly since asm-generic depends on > > > ifndef to add generic variants where needed. > > > > > > But it would be possible to add a checkpatch test for this. > > > > Wasn't the whole purpose of these things for 'drivers' (namely > > virtio/xen hypervisor interaction) to use these? > > Ah, I see, you add virt_*mb() stuff later on for that use case. > > So, assuming everybody does include asm-generic/barrier.h, you could > simply #undef the __smp version at the end of that, once we've generated > all the regular primitives from it, no? Maybe I misunderstand, but I don't think so: ------> #define __smp_xxx FOO #define smp_xxx __smp_xxx #undef __smp_xxx smp_xxx <------ resolves to __smp_xxx, not FOO. That's why I went the checkpatch way. -- MST