Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v11 1/5] xen: move xen_setup_runstate_info and get_runstate_snapshot to drivers/xen/time.c

[Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:11:40AM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > > +static u64 get64(const u64 *p)
> > > +{
> > > + u64 ret;
> > > +
> > > + if (BITS_PER_LONG < 64) {
> > > +         u32 *p32 = (u32 *)p;
> > > +         u32 h, l;
> > > +
> > > +         /*
> > > +          * Read high then low, and then make sure high is
> > > +          * still the same; this will only loop if low wraps
> > > +          * and carries into high.
> > > +          * XXX some clean way to make this endian-proof?
> > > +          */
> > > +         do {
> > > +                 h = p32[1];
> > > +                 barrier();
> > > +                 l = p32[0];
> > > +                 barrier();
> > > +         } while (p32[1] != h);
> > 
> > I realise this is simply a move of existing code, but it may be better
> > to instead have:
> > 
> > do {
> >     h = READ_ONCE(p32[1]);
> >     l = READ_ONCE(p32[0]);
> > } while (READ_ONCE(p32[1] != h);
> > 
> > Which ensures that each load is a single access (though it almost
> > certainly would be anyway), and prevents the compiler from having to
> > reload any other memory locations (which the current barrier() usage
> > forces).
> 
> I am happy to make these changes, however for code clarity and review
> simplicity I'll keep them on a separate patch (I like code movement to
> remain code movement). I can squash the two patches together when
> committing, if necessary.

Sure, I also prefer to separate code movement from code rework, so that
makes sense to me.

Thanks,
Mark.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel