>>> On 30.04.19 at 15:35, wrote:
> On 30/04/2019 14:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 30.04.19 at 15:16, wrote:
>>> On 30/04/2019 12:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 30.04.19 at 12:44, wrote:
> Then we could drop this #ifndef section.
Not sure about this - I'm actually unconvinced t
On 30/04/2019 14:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 30.04.19 at 15:16, wrote:
On 30/04/2019 12:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 30.04.19 at 12:44, wrote:
An alternative would be memory barriers between the writes on ARM,
right? Or a strong ordered set_bit() variant (we had that discussion
recently related
>>> On 30.04.19 at 15:16, wrote:
> On 30/04/2019 12:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 30.04.19 at 12:44, wrote:
>>> An alternative would be memory barriers between the writes on ARM,
>>> right? Or a strong ordered set_bit() variant (we had that discussion
>>> recently related to a barrier in ARM-sp
Hi,
On 30/04/2019 12:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 30.04.19 at 12:44, wrote:
An alternative would be memory barriers between the writes on ARM,
right? Or a strong ordered set_bit() variant (we had that discussion
recently related to a barrier in ARM-specific __cpu_disable()).
I am not entirely a
>>> On 30.04.19 at 12:44, wrote:
> An alternative would be memory barriers between the writes on ARM,
> right? Or a strong ordered set_bit() variant (we had that discussion
> recently related to a barrier in ARM-specific __cpu_disable()).
Yes.
> Then we could drop this #ifndef section.
Not sure
On 30/04/2019 12:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 30.04.19 at 12:31, wrote:
>
>>
>> On 30/04/2019 11:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 30.04.19 at 11:13, wrote:
In xen/common/schedule.c there is a weird "#ifndef CONFIG_X86" in
do_poll().
It was introduced way before anyone would
>>> On 30.04.19 at 12:31, wrote:
>
> On 30/04/2019 11:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 30.04.19 at 11:13, wrote:
>>> In xen/common/schedule.c there is a weird "#ifndef CONFIG_X86" in
>>> do_poll().
>>>
>>> It was introduced way before anyone would think about ARM by commit
>>> ef4c6b079cc55e (I
On 30/04/2019 11:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 30.04.19 at 11:13, wrote:
In xen/common/schedule.c there is a weird "#ifndef CONFIG_X86" in
do_poll().
It was introduced way before anyone would think about ARM by commit
ef4c6b079cc55e (I couldn't find any xen-devel mail related to that
commit), so
>>> On 30.04.19 at 11:13, wrote:
> In xen/common/schedule.c there is a weird "#ifndef CONFIG_X86" in
> do_poll().
>
> It was introduced way before anyone would think about ARM by commit
> ef4c6b079cc55e (I couldn't find any xen-devel mail related to that
> commit), so I guess it is related to IA6
On Tue, 2019-04-30 at 11:13 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> In xen/common/schedule.c there is a weird "#ifndef CONFIG_X86" in
> do_poll().
>
> It was introduced way before anyone would think about ARM by commit
> ef4c6b079cc55e (I couldn't find any xen-devel mail related to that
> commit), so I gues
In xen/common/schedule.c there is a weird "#ifndef CONFIG_X86" in
do_poll().
It was introduced way before anyone would think about ARM by commit
ef4c6b079cc55e (I couldn't find any xen-devel mail related to that
commit), so I guess it is related to IA64?
Question is: can we just drop it, or does
11 matches
Mail list logo
