[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130916180231.1570f7c5cebab599cef5b4bb@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:02:31 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Why does test_bit() take a volatile addr?
Hi Michael,
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:26:03 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:53:44PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:38:35 +0930 Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
> > >
> > > ie:
> > > int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
> >
> > Because we sometimes pass volatile pointers to it and gcc will complain
> > if you pass a volatile to a non volatile (I think).
>
> Where are these? I did git grep -W test_bit and looked for volatile,
> couldn't find anything.
OK, so it was a bit of a guess. Have you really checked the type of
every address passed to every call of test_bit()?
Second guess: we wanted to make the test_bit access volatile (as opposed
to the datatypes of the objects being tested) so that things like
while (testbit(bit, addr)) {
do_very_little();
}
don't get over optimised (since we are operating in a very threaded
environment that the compiler not might expect).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists