From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54799)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Ute1x-00069q-8M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 09:20:34 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Ute1s-0000Gq-HJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 09:20:33 -0400
Received: from mail-gh0-f176.google.com ([209.85.160.176]:54153)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Ute1s-0000GW-D4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 09:20:28 -0400
Received: by mail-gh0-f176.google.com with SMTP id z17so1956129ghb.7
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 06:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <51D17E6B.9050503@redhat.com>
References: <1372444009-11544-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<1372444009-11544-5-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<8761wy9ded.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <51D15830.5080504@redhat.com>
	<87li5q4epp.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <51D17E6B.9050503@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 08:20:26 -0500
Message-ID: <87vc4uju1x.fsf@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/30] add a header file for atomic
	operations
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes:

> Il 01/07/2013 15:00, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
>>> I
>>> > cannot find the commit exactly, but I think mst added specific code for
>>> > that.
>> Right, I'm not questioning whether these functions have strong enough
>> semantics in their implementation, but asking what their contract should
>> be.
>> 
>> Either we should document that these functions have atomic semantics or
>> we should introduce another variant that guarantee atomic access.
>> 
>> I think the later makes more sense since the majority of users probably
>> don't need atomic semantics.
>
> I think many of these loads and stores do, actually; perhaps most.  It
> also matches what hardware does.

Hrm, I'm not sure if that's true.  PCI has an explicit LOCK# bit to
enable exclusive access so my assumption would be that it doesn't by
default.

But either way, we should document the semantics.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> Paolo