[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 16:27:01 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/14] rcu: Protect rcu_boost() lockless
accesses with ACCESS_ONCE()
On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 22:58 +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> When we talk about changing the parameters it might make sense to also think about some comments from George Spelvin and consider a rename to WRITE_ONCE or STORE_ONCE (READ_ONCE --> LOAD_ONCE). Unfortunately there doesnt seem to be a variant that is fool proof (in the sense of Rustys guideline that a good interface cannot be used wrong). So any proposal in that regard would be very welcome.
I think any of those two names are a lot better than what we have now.
I'm a bit inclined towards LOAD/STORE though. That, and reordering the
arguments for stores would make it pretty fool proof imo.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists