Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@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
