On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:53:40AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > This would be better titled as: > > compiler: don't return a value from WRITE_ONCE()
No strong opinion here: I'll adopt your suggestion in v2 if there are no objections. And similarly for the rcu_assign_pointer() patch. > > ... since we do want the WRITE_ONCE() itself to be evaluated. > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:35:36PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote: > > Now that there's no single use of the value of WRITE_ONCE(), change > > the implementation to eliminate it. > > I hope that's the case, but it's possible that some macros might be > relying on this, so it's probably worth waiting to see if the kbuild > test robot screams. Absolutely! Does kbuild process your tree? I might be worth to apply the patch to just see what kbuild 'think' about it... > > Otherwise, I agree that WRITE_ONCE() returning a value is surprising, > and unnecessary. IIRC you said that trying to suport that in other > implementations was painful, so aligning on a non-returning version > sounds reasonable to me. And I should probably also modify the few #define-s under tools/ (that I missed in this iteration...) Thanks, Andrea
