>>> On 23.01.19 at 14:20, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:
> On 23/01/2019 13:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 23.01.19 at 12:51, <nmant...@amazon.de> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/nospec.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/nospec.h
>>> @@ -58,6 +58,21 @@ static inline unsigned long
>>> array_index_mask_nospec(unsigned long index,
>>> (typeof(_i)) (_i & _mask); \
>>> })
>>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * allow to insert a read memory barrier into conditionals
>>> + */
>>
>> Please obey to the comment style set forth in ./CODING_STYLE.
>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86
>>> +static inline bool lfence_true(void) { rmb(); return true; }
>>> +#else
>>> +static inline bool lfence_true(void) { return true; }
>>> +#endif
>>
>> This is a generic header, hence functions defined here should have
>> universally applicable names. "lfence", however, is an x86 term
>> (naming a particular instruction). I can't think of really good
>> alternatives, but how about one of arch_nospec_true() /
>> arch_fence_nospec_true() / arch_nospec_fence_true()?
>
> We seems to use more the term "barrier" in common code over "fence". So how
> about arch_barrier_nospec_true/arch_nospec_barrier_true?
That would be fine with me as well.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
