[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150109135614.GI29390@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 14:56:14 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, 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, bobby.prani@...il.com,
borntraeger@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/14] rcu: Protect rcu_boost() lockless
accesses with ACCESS_ONCE()
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 05:49:54AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > That reminds me, I think the new conversion for stores will most likely
> > introduce silly arg bugs:
> >
> > - ACCESS_ONCE(a) = b;
> > + ASSIGN_ONCE(b, a);
>
> I was planning to do mine by hand for this sort of reason.
>
> Or are you thinking of something more subtle than the case where
> "b" is an unparenthesized comma-separated expression?
I think he's revering to the wrong way around-ness of the thing.
Its a bit of a mixed bag on assignments, but for instance
rcu_assign_pointer() takes them the right way around, as does
atomic_set().
So yes, I think the ASSIGN_ONCE() thing got the arguments the wrong way
around.
We could maybe still change it, before its in too long ?
--
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