[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH SpectreV1+L1TF v4 01/11] is_control_domain: block speculation
Hi, On 23/01/2019 13:07, Jan Beulich wrote: On 23.01.19 at 12:51, <nmanthey@xxxxxxxxx> 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; } +#endifThis 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? Cheers, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |