[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANpmjNM0noP8ieQztyEvijz+MG-cDxxmfwaX_QTpnyT5G33EGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 16:33:17 +0200
From: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
Brian Cain <bcain@...cinc.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org" <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org" <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
"linux-sh@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
"sparclinux@...r.kernel.org" <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] bitops: always define asm-generic non-atomic bitops
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 at 16:21, Alexander Lobakin
<alexandr.lobakin@...el.com> wrote:
>
> From: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 18:32:36 +0200
>
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 18:02, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@...el.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > +/**
> > > > > + * generic_test_bit - Determine whether a bit is set
> > > > > + * @nr: bit number to test
> > > > > + * @addr: Address to start counting from
> > > > > + */
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't we add in this or in separate patch a big NOTE to explain that this
> > > > is actually atomic and must be kept as a such?
> > >
> > > "atomic" isn't really the right word. The volatile access makes sure that the
> > > compiler does the test at the point that the source code asked, and doesn't
> > > move it before/after other operations.
> >
> > It's listed in Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt.
>
> Oh, so my memory was actually correct that I saw it in the docs
> somewhere.
> WDYT, should I mention this here in the code (block comment) as well
> that it's atomic and must not lose `volatile` as Andy suggested or
> it's sufficient to have it in the docs (+ it's not underscored)?
Perhaps a quick comment in the code (not kerneldoc above) will be
sufficient, with reference to Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists