[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200718143502.GC1179836@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 10:35:02 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: document the "one-time init" pattern
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:28:18PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> /**
> * INIT_ONCE() - do one-time initialization
> * @done: pointer to a 'bool' flag that tracks whether initialization has been
> * done yet or not. Must be false by default.
> * @mutex: pointer to a mutex to use to synchronize executions of @init_func
> * @init_func: the one-time initialization function
> * @...: additional arguments to pass to @init_func (optional)
> *
> * This is a more general version of DO_ONCE_BLOCKING() which supports
> * non-static data by allowing the user to specify their own 'done' flag and
> * mutex.
> *
> * Return: 0 on success (done or already done), or a negative errno value
> * returned by @init_func.
It might be worth pointing out explicitly that init_func can be called
multiple times, if it returns an error.
> */
> #define INIT_ONCE(done, mutex, init_func, ...) \
> ({ \
> int err = 0; \
> \
> if (!smp_load_acquire(done)) { \
> mutex_lock(mutex); \
> if (!*(done)) { \
> err = init_func(__VA_ARGS__); \
> if (!err) \
> smp_store_release((done), true); \
> } \
> mutex_unlock(mutex); \
> } \
> err; \
> })
If this macro is invoked in multiple places for the same object (which
is not unlikely), there is a distinct risk that people will supply
different mutexes or done variables for the invocations.
IMO a better approach would be to have a macro which, given a variable
name v, generates an actual init_once_v() function. Then code wanting
to use v would call init_once_v() first, with no danger of inconsistent
usage. You can fill in the details...
Alan Stern
Powered by blists - more mailing lists