[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <561B688C.3040701@de.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:00:12 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux/compiler.h: fix stale comment on {READ,WRITE}_ONCE
Am 12.10.2015 um 09:46 schrieb Rasmus Villemoes:
> Commit 7bd3e239d6c6 ("locking: Remove atomicy checks from
> {READ,WRITE}_ONCE") removed said warning.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
> ---
> include/linux/compiler.h | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/compiler.h b/include/linux/compiler.h
> index c836eb2dc44d..1dd0034e15e2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/compiler.h
> +++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
> @@ -237,8 +237,7 @@ static __always_inline void __write_once_size(volatile void *p, void *res, int s
> * In contrast to ACCESS_ONCE these two macros will also work on aggregate
> * data types like structs or unions. If the size of the accessed data
> * type exceeds the word size of the machine (e.g., 32 bits or 64 bits)
> - * READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() will fall back to memcpy and print a
> - * compile-time warning.
> + * READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() will fall back to memcpy.
> *
> * Their two major use cases are: (1) Mediating communication between
> * process-level code and irq/NMI handlers, all running on the same CPU,
>
Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
--
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