On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 03:46:46PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> > Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:58:19 +0200 > > > -. Patch 1 documents the __smp APIs, and explains why they are > > useful for virt > > If virt is doing things like interacting with descriptors that are > shared with a (potentially SMP) host, why don't we just annotate those > specific cases?
Using a bunch of per-arch ifdefs in virtio? That's fundamentally what we have now. But basically the rework reduces the LOC count in kernel anyway by moving all ifdef CONFIG_SMP hacks into asm-generic. So why not let virt benefit? Or do you mean wrappers for __smp_XXX that explicitly say they are for talking to host? E.g. pv_mb() pv_rmb() etc. That sounds very reasonable to me. __smp_XXX things then become an implementation detail. > The other memory barriers in the kernel do not matter for SMP'ness > when build UP. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
