[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72mLAMQ8T7qK738SKRKUrywxwE4xYdtLrYfL49-TKO-qnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 19:29:54 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, logang@...tatee.com,
Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rust: helpers: Remove volatile qualifier from io helpers
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 6:54 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> Rihgt, I tried this last week when it came up first, removing the
> 'volatile' annotations in the asm-generic/io.h header and then
> all the ones that caused build regressions on arm/arm64/x86
> randconfig and allmodconfig builds. This patch is a little
> longer than my original version as I did run into a few
> regressions later.
>
> As far as I can tell, none of these volatile annotations have
> any actual effect, and most of them date back to ancient kernels
> where this may have been required.
>
> Leaving it out of the rust interface is clearly the right way,
> and it shouldn't be too hard to upstream the changes below
> when we need to, but I also don't see any priority to send these.
> If anyone wants to help out, I can send them the whole patch.
Thanks a lot Arnd -- then let's go without them on the Rust side. I
will pick it as a fix.
I added an issue in case someone wants to help:
https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1156
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists