From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:45:59 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 2/6] arm64: barriers: make use of barrier options with
 explicit barriers
In-Reply-To: <20140206114130.GJ29446@arm.com>
References: <1391686253-13436-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
 <1391686253-13436-2-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
 <20140206114130.GJ29446@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20140206114559.GM26035@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:41:30AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:30:49AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h
> > @@ -20,14 +20,14 @@
> >  
> >  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> >  
> > -#define sev()		asm volatile("sev" : : : "memory")
> > +#define sev(l)		asm volatile("sev" #l : : : "memory")
> 
> Would we actually ever use sev(l) form C? And it's a new instruction
> rather than an argument to the existing sev.

I don't know, but if it's not there then I'm pretty sure people will always
use sev, even if sevl could be used. In fact, sev and sevl are both aliases
of hint, so they're the same instruction with different immediate operands.

Will