[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 0/2] two atomic_cmpxchg() related fixes
From: |
Cornelia Huck |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 0/2] two atomic_cmpxchg() related fixes |
Date: |
Wed, 1 Jul 2020 15:10:34 +0200 |
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:06:11 +0200
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 01.07.20 14:01, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 06:50:33 +0200
> > Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The story short: compiler can generate code that does two
> >> distinct fetches of *ind_addr for old and _old. If that happens we can
> >> not figure out if we had the desired xchg or not.
> >>
> >> Halil Pasic (2):
> >> virtio-ccw: fix virtio_set_ind_atomic
> >> s390x/pci: fix set_ind_atomic
> >>
> >> hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c | 16 +++++++++-------
> >> hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
> >> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>
> >> base-commit: 7d3660e79830a069f1848bb4fa1cdf8f666424fb
> >
> > Have we managed to reach any kind of agreement on this? (A v2?)
> >
> > We can still get in fixes post-softfreeze, of course.
>
> Unless Halil has a v2 ready,
> I think the current patch is fine as is as a fix. I would suggest
> to go with that and we can then do more beautification later when
> necessary.
Sure, no objection to the patches as they are now.
I would like to see some R-bs/A-bs, though :)