[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131121220950.GG4138@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:09:51 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: 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, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com, sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RFC 1/3] documentation: Add needed ACCESS_ONCE() calls
to memory-barriers.txt
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:55:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 01:31:27PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > The Documentation/memory-barriers.txt file was written before the need
> > for ACCESS_ONCE() was fully appreciated. It therefore contains no
> > ACCESS_ONCE() calls, which can be a problem when people lift examples
> > from it. This commit therefore adds ACCESS_ONCE() calls.
>
> So I find the repeated ACCESS_ONCE() significantly detracts from the
> readability of the text.
>
> Can't we simply state that all accesses are assumed single-copy atomic
> and this can be achieved for naturally aligned words using ACCESS_ONCE()
> in C/C++ ?
We could, but at the moment I would prefer the decrease in readability
to the copy-and-paste bugs that omit needed ACCESS_ONCE() calls.
Is there some way to get both ACCESS_ONCE() and readability? An
abbreviation such as AO()? More easily distinguished variable names?
Something else?
Thanx, Paul
--
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