From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] xen/arm: Move p2m context save/restore
 in a separate function
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:44:05 +0000
Message-ID: <53356E95.2080103@linaro.org>
References: <1395243819-30380-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1395243819-30380-2-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<20140320172338.GG68664@deinos.phlegethon.org>
	<532B2C94.5060400@linaro.org>
	<1395393567.3104.46.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <julien.grall@linaro.org>) id 1WTW8n-00053x-EM
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:44:09 +0000
Received: by mail-ee0-f43.google.com with SMTP id e53so4028742eek.2
	for <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>;
	Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1395393567.3104.46.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hi Ian,

On 03/21/2014 09:19 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 17:59 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> 
>>> Are all of these isb()s necessary?  I guess this is only code motion,
>>> so in any case, Acked-by: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org> (for the whole series)
>>> but it seems like at least the one after the VTTBR write could go?
>>
>> Thanks for the review.
>>
>> Yes, the isb() right after VTBBR can be removed.
> 
> Actually I think there are probably loads of barriers in the context
> switch path which can be dropped in favour of a final one at the end,
> not all that much stuff there relies on stuff which is reloaded before
> it (of course we should keep barriers for cases where there is a
> dependence).

Sorry for the late answer. Shall I rework this patch and remove the
duplicated isb and HCR_VM?

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall