From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost-net: switch to smp barriers Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:39:11 +0200 Message-ID: <20100213173911.GA5040@redhat.com> References: <20100201172101.GA10900@redhat.com> <20100207090749.GA12968@redhat.com> <201002081849.39512.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201002081849.39512.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rusty Russell Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.osdl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Miller List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 06:49:39PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 07:37:49 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 07:21:02PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > vhost-net only uses memory barriers to control SMP effects > > > (communication with userspace potentially running on a different CPU), > > > so it should use SMP barriers and not mandatory barriers for memory > > > access ordering, as suggested by Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin > > > > > > Rusty, any feedback on this one? > > Thanks! > > Yep. barrier() is correct on UP to guard against preemption. > > Acked-by: Rusty Russell > > Thanks, > Rusty. Dave, I see it's marked "not applicable": http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/44207/ the patch applies to net-next as of b3b3f04fb587ecb61b5baa6c1c5f0e666fd12d73. Can this be queued up please? Should I resubmit with Rusty's ack? Thanks! -- MST