From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KyURs-0006A0-Is
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:44:40 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KyURq-00068z-PW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:44:40 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51674 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KyURq-00068n-Jw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:44:38 -0500
Received: from mail-gx0-f15.google.com ([209.85.217.15]:55269)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <laurent.desnogues@gmail.com>) id 1KyURq-0002VY-D7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:44:38 -0500
Received: by gxk8 with SMTP id 8so920953gxk.10
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:44:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <761ea48b0811070842i264703ci255bc858be6e9ebd@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 17:42:52 +0100
From: "Laurent Desnogues" <laurent.desnogues@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Alpha: fix locked loads/stores
In-Reply-To: <20081107151828.GA353@hall.aurel32.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <761ea48b0811070334lb817c00x38624ca7bb41bb57@mail.gmail.com>
	<20081107140034.GA28030@volta.aurel32.net>
	<761ea48b0811070619y3a6447e9g7b07dee73703ef6c@mail.gmail.com>
	<20081107151828.GA353@hall.aurel32.net>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> wrote:
> The manual is actually not really clear. Section 4.2.5 does not really
> speak about storing the locked address, while Section 3.1.4 explicitly
> mentions a "locked_physical_address register".

Yes, it's really unclear.

> The current implementation, now that it is fixed (can someone confirms
> that the problem is actually fixed?), matches the pre-TCG
> implementation. I am not sure it is the correct one, but if it works for
> now and until someone comes with more arguments, I think we should let
> the code as now.

I agree.  It's probably better than simply ignoring the address.

We need a way to test the behavior on real machines with some
multi-threaded testcase.


Laurent