[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200506153639.GD5281@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 17:36:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V4 part 1 06/36] compiler: Simple READ/WRITE_ONCE()
implementations
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:33:33PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 03:16:08PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > READ/WRITE_ONCE_NOCHECK() is required for atomics in code which cannot be
> > instrumented like the x86 int3 text poke code. As READ/WRITE_ONCE() is
> > undergoing a rewrite, provide __{READ,WRITE}_ONCE_SCALAR().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > ---
> > include/linux/compiler.h | 8 ++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > --- a/include/linux/compiler.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
> > @@ -313,6 +313,14 @@ unsigned long read_word_at_a_time(const
> > __u.__val; \
> > })
> >
> > +#define __READ_ONCE_SCALAR(x) \
> > + (*(const volatile typeof(x) *)&(x))
> > +
> > +#define __WRITE_ONCE_SCALAR(x, val) \
> > +do { \
> > + *(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x) = val; \
> > +} while (0)
>
> FWIW, these end up being called __READ_ONCE() and __WRITE_ONCE() after
> the rewrite; the *_SCALAR() variants will call into kcsan_check_atomic_*().
>
> If you go with that naming now, then any later conflict should fall out in
> the wash.
Ah excellent, clearly we had slightly different resoltions vs kcsan.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists