From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58762) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1buSHA-0001Mz-Mc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:45:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1buSH5-0007GL-UO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:45:28 -0400 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:42685) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1buSH3-0007Bx-Lb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:45:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:45:10 -0400 From: "Emilio G. Cota" Message-ID: <20161012224510.GA3308@flamenco> References: <1476107947-31430-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1476107947-31430-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] More thread sanitizer fixes and atomic.h improvements List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, alex.bennee@linaro.org On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 15:59:02 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > See each patch. My attempt at fixing whatever I did when I obviously > didn't know enough^W about the C11 memory model, and at setting a > better example for future generations... Just for context. Building on this patchset, is it now time to phase out smp_(rw)mb in favour or C11's acq/rel, as you laid out in your KVM Forum talk [*]? What is the plan with smp_mb_(sg)et? It's not clear to me from the slides, but given patch 5 I don't see a reason to keep them. Thanks, Emilio [*] http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/kvmforum16-atomic2.pdf