From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753824AbcADNhN (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2016 08:37:13 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:53569 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752741AbcADNhJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2016 08:37:09 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:36:58 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/32] arm: define __smp_xxx Message-ID: <20160104133658.GY6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160103110158-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? And I suppose most of virtio would actually be modules, so you cannot do what I did with preempt_enable_no_resched() either. But yes, it would be good to limit the use of these things.