* Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:31:04AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
> > >
> > > lockless_dereference is a nice idea, but its gained little traction in
> > > kernel code since it's introduction three years ago. This is partly
> >
> > s/its/it
> > s/it's/its
>
> Crikey, no idea what happened there!
NP, just habitual drive-by typo fixing from me, would have fixed them silently
when applying the patches, had it not been for the split-up suggestion :-)
> > > because it's a pain to type, but also because using READ_ONCE instead
> > > will work correctly on all architectures apart from Alpha, which is a
> > > fully supported but somewhat niche architecture these days.
> > >
> > > This patch moves smp_read_barrier_depends() (a NOP on all architectures
> > > other than Alpha) from lockless_dereference into READ_ONCE, converts
> > > the few actual users over to READ_ONCE and then finally removes
> > > lockless_dereference altogether.
> >
> > Nit: if we refer to smp_read_barrier_depends() with parentheses (which is
> > the nice
> > thing to do for function-alike symbols), then we should do the same with
> > READ_ONCE() and lockless_dereference() as well.
> >
> > Also, could we please split this into three patches:
> >
> > #1: Add smp_read_barrier_depends() to READ_ONCE()
> > #2: Convert all lockless_dereference() users to READ_ONCE()
> > #3: Remove the now unused lockless_dereference() API
> >
> > to make it easier to analyze if bisected to, should any problems arise?
>
> Sure, I'll do that now.
Thanks!
Ingo
