Date:	Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:34:43 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	"chris@...kel.net" <chris@...kel.net>,
	"cmetcalf@...era.com" <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"deller@....de" <deller@....de>,
	"dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	"geert@...ux-m68k.org" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	"heiko.carstens@...ibm.com" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"jcmvbkbc@...il.com" <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
	"jesper.nilsson@...s.com" <jesper.nilsson@...s.com>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"monstr@...str.eu" <monstr@...str.eu>,
	"paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"rdunlap@...radead.org" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	"sam@...nborg.org" <sam@...nborg.org>,
	"schwidefsky@...ibm.com" <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	"starvik@...s.com" <starvik@...s.com>,
	"takata@...ux-m32r.org" <takata@...ux-m32r.org>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"daniel.thompson@...aro.org" <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
	"broonie@...aro.org" <broonie@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Cross-architecture definitions of relaxed MMIO accessors

On Wednesday 01 October 2014 17:23:58 Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:50:13AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 29 September 2014 10:23:25 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > 
> > > How about if I keep iterating this series? It seems like most failures
> > > can be reproduced by doing ARM defconfig and allmodconfig builds, so
> > > I'll do those and fix up any issues I find. Hopefully I can squash all
> > > these before 3.18-rc1, then we can take it into linux-next early for
> > > 3.19? In the meantime perhaps I can work with Olof to get a branch with
> > > these patches tested on his builder? And perhaps on the 0-day builder in
> > > addition?
> > 
> > Yes, definitely!
> > 
> > Note that I saw a lot of problems only in randconfig build tests but
> > not in any of the default configurations. I'll send you the fixup patch
> > soon so you can integrate that in your series.
> 
> One of the things I've seen a lot is warnings about volatile being
> ignored. This is caused by my latest series dropping the volatile
> keyword for the I/O accessors. The rationale being that use of volatile
> should be an implementation detail of the accessors rather than the
> function signature.

The reason those accessors have the volatile keyword in the argument
list is purely to silence the compiler when a driver passes a variable
that is marked volatile.

> Given the massive amount of changes needed to remove these warnings, is
> it better to just keep the volatile keyword even if it's clearly wrong
> in the context of the I/O accessors? Or should we bite the bullet and
> remove all the wrong uses while at it?
> 
> I suppose if we decide to remove them we can always make that a separate
> patch series.

Right, let's not do that now. We could put it on the kernel janitor wiki
as a task for newbies though.

	Arnd
--
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