[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160211151610.GL6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:16:10 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alfredo Alvarez Fernandez <alfredoalvarezfernandez@...il.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, sasha.levin@...cle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tools/liblockdep: add userspace version of READ_ONCE
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:33:30AM +0100, Alfredo Alvarez Fernandez wrote:
> From: Alfredo Alvarez Fernandez <alfredoalvarezfernandez@...il.com>
>
> This was added to the kernel code in 1658d35ead5d ("list: Use
> READ_ONCE() when testing for empty lists")
> There's nothing special we need to do about it in userspace.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alfredo Alvarez Fernandez <alfredoalvarezfernandez@...il.com>
> ---
> tools/lib/lockdep/uinclude/linux/compiler.h | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/lockdep/uinclude/linux/compiler.h b/tools/lib/lockdep/uinclude/linux/compiler.h
> index 6386dc3..fd3e56a 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/lockdep/uinclude/linux/compiler.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/lockdep/uinclude/linux/compiler.h
> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
>
> #define __used __attribute__((__unused__))
> #define unlikely
> +#define READ_ONCE(x) (x)
> #define WRITE_ONCE(x, val) x=(val)
I would argue we'd still very much want the volatile cast for both READ
and WRITE_ONCE().
Why do these things have different semantics between user and kernel
space?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists