Am 15.01.2015 um 21:01 schrieb Oleg Nesterov:
> On 01/15, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>> Am 15.01.2015 um 20:38 schrieb Oleg Nesterov:
>>> On 01/15, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
>>>> @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ static inline void
>>>> arch_spin_unlock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>>>> __ticket_t head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
>>>>
>>>> for (;;) {
>>>> - struct __raw_tickets tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets);
>>>> + struct __raw_tickets tmp = READ_ONCE(lock->tickets);
>>>
>>> Agreed, but what about another ACCESS_ONCE() above?
>>>
>>> Oleg.
>>
>> tickets.head is a scalar type, so ACCESS_ONCE does work fine with gcc
>> 4.6/4.7.
>> My goal was to convert all accesses on non-scalar types
>
> I understand, but READ_ONCE(lock->tickets.head) looks better anyway and
> arch_spin_lock() already use READ_ONCE() for this.
>
> So why we should keep the last ACCESS_ONCE() in spinlock.h ? Just to make
> another cosmetic cleanup which touches the same function later?
OK, I will change that one as well.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
