From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:51858)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1R0s2v-0002BG-AJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 05:34:22 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1R0s2u-0003zJ-3k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 05:34:21 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:26601)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1R0s2t-0003zF-SB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 05:34:20 -0400
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:35:14 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20110906093514.GD16091@redhat.com>
References: <20110901163359.GB11620@redhat.com>
	<786649703.1049386.1314909069542.JavaMail.root@zmail07.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
	<20110902154549.GA18368@redhat.com>
	<20110903144635.GD12965@yookeroo.fritz.box>
	<20110904091643.GA20795@redhat.com>
	<20110905044316.GD30278@yookeroo.fritz.box>
	<20110905091945.GC16038@redhat.com>
	<20110906031224.GH30278@yookeroo.fritz.box>
	<4E65C3EE.1090407@redhat.com> <4E65E7C8.4080602@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E65E7C8.4080602@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] virtio: Make memory barriers be memory
 barriers
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, aik@ozlabs.ru, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, agraf@suse.de, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>

On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 12:28:40PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 09/06/2011 09:55 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >On 09/06/2011 05:12 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> >>I'm not "fixing ppc".  I'm fixing a fundamental flaw in the protocol
> >>implementation._So far_  I've only observed the effects on ppc, but
> >>that doesn't mean they don't exist.
> >
> >Actually Michael is right.  The implementation is correct on x86,
> >though wrong anywhere else (perhaps s390?).  On those
> >architectures you do not need rmb() and wmb().
> 
> Are we sure?  Nothing prevents the guest from using weakly-ordered
> writes, is there?  For example, using MOVNTDQ.

Yes but the macros in question are here to order qemu accesses,
not guest accesses.
> 
> Although in that case the guest is probably required to issue an SFENCE.
> -- 
> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function