[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFw+cLJ6xW0Wk6nMbK+e1yr2KGCWN+-v2a7xK1u8zTtDtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:36:06 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Andreas Krebbel <Andreas.Krebbel@...ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: compiler bug gcc4.6/4.7 with ACCESS_ONCE and workarounds
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> I guess as a workaround it is fine, as long as we don't lose sight of
> trying to eventually do a better job.
Oh, and when it comes to the actual gcc bug - do you have any reason
to believe that it's somehow triggered more easily by something
particular in the arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c code?
IOW, why does this problem not hit the x86 spinlocks that also use
volatile pointers to aggregate types? Or does it?
Linus
--
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