[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150115193839.GA28727@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 20:38:39 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86/spinlock: Leftover conversion
ACCESS_ONCE->READ_ONCE
On 01/15, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ static inline void arch_spin_unlock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> __ticket_t head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
>
> for (;;) {
> - struct __raw_tickets tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets);
> + struct __raw_tickets tmp = READ_ONCE(lock->tickets);
Agreed, but what about another ACCESS_ONCE() above?
Oleg.
--
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