On 7/29/21 4:11 PM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 29/07/2021 10:55, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:52:17 +0100,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx>
But its a very subtle change which might be difficult to debug and blame+ __tsb_csync(); \
+ __tsb_csync(); \
+ } else { \
+ __tsb_csync(); \
+ } \
nit: You could keep one unconditional __tsb_csync().
I thought about that, I was worried if the CPU expects them back to back
without any other instructions in between them. Thinking about it a bit
more, it doesn't look like that is the case. I will confirm this and
change it accordingly.
later on, if indeed both the instructions need to be back to back. Seems
like just better to leave this unchanged.