Re: [PATCH v2] drivers/base: use READ_ONCE instead of deprecated ACCESS_ONCE

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 09:02:49AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Greg KH wrote:
> > What changed from v1?  Please always include it below the --- line to
> > keep maintainer's semi-sane.
> 
> If anything changed I would have -- this is only the From != SoB thing
> you were complaining about.

How am I supposed to remember that?  And that is a change, so please
list it.  Otherwise I just will drop it.

Remember, maintainers get hundreds of patches, and have no short term
memory at all, you have to remind them of everything.  That's your job.

> There's nothing to try again, this is a trivial.

a trivial what?

Anyway, you are going to have to fix it up if you want it accepted, it's
long gone from my patch queue...

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH v2] drivers/base: use READ_ONCE instead of deprecated ACCESS_ONCE

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 09:02:49AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Greg KH wrote:
> > What changed from v1?  Please always include it below the --- line to
> > keep maintainer's semi-sane.
> 
> If anything changed I would have -- this is only the From != SoB thing
> you were complaining about.

How am I supposed to remember that?  And that is a change, so please
list it.  Otherwise I just will drop it.

Remember, maintainers get hundreds of patches, and have no short term
memory at all, you have to remind them of everything.  That's your job.

> There's nothing to try again, this is a trivial.

a trivial what?

Anyway, you are going to have to fix it up if you want it accepted, it's
long gone from my patch queue...

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH v2] drivers/base: use READ_ONCE instead of deprecated ACCESS_ONCE

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Greg KH wrote:

What changed from v1?  Please always include it below the --- line to
keep maintainer's semi-sane.


If anything changed I would have -- this is only the From != SoB thing
you were complaining about. There's nothing to try again, this is a trivial.

Re: [PATCH v2] drivers/base: use READ_ONCE instead of deprecated ACCESS_ONCE

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Greg KH wrote:

What changed from v1?  Please always include it below the --- line to
keep maintainer's semi-sane.


If anything changed I would have -- this is only the From != SoB thing
you were complaining about. There's nothing to try again, this is a trivial.

Re: [PATCH v2] drivers/base: use READ_ONCE instead of deprecated ACCESS_ONCE

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:49:26AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> With the new standardized functions, we can replace all ACCESS_ONCE()
> calls across relevant drivers/base/.
> 
> ACCESS_ONCE() does not work reliably on non-scalar types. For example
> gcc 4.6 and 4.7 might remove the volatile tag for such accesses during
> the SRA (scalar replacement of aggregates) step:
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58145
> 
> Update the new calls regardless of if it is a scalar type, this is
> cleaner than having three alternatives.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso 
> ---
> drivers/base/core.c  | 2 +-
> drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

What changed from v1?  Please always include it below the --- line to
keep maintainer's semi-sane.

Try again?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH v2] drivers/base: use READ_ONCE instead of deprecated ACCESS_ONCE

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:49:26AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> With the new standardized functions, we can replace all ACCESS_ONCE()
> calls across relevant drivers/base/.
> 
> ACCESS_ONCE() does not work reliably on non-scalar types. For example
> gcc 4.6 and 4.7 might remove the volatile tag for such accesses during
> the SRA (scalar replacement of aggregates) step:
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58145
> 
> Update the new calls regardless of if it is a scalar type, this is
> cleaner than having three alternatives.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso 
> ---
> drivers/base/core.c  | 2 +-
> drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

What changed from v1?  Please always include it below the --- line to
keep maintainer's semi-sane.

Try again?

thanks,

greg k-h