For several reasons, it is desirable to use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in
preference to ACCESS_ONCE(), and new code is expected to use one of the
former. So far, there's been no reason to change most existing uses of
ACCESS_ONCE(), as these aren't currently harmful.
However, for some features it is necessary to instrument reads and
writes separately, which is not possible with ACCESS_ONCE(). This
distinction is critical to correct operation.
It's possible to transform the bulk of kernel code using the Coccinelle
script below. However, this doesn't handle comments, leaving references
to ACCESS_ONCE() instances which have been removed. As a preparatory
step, this patch converts the mm code and comments to use
{READ,WRITE}_ONCE() consistently.
----
virtual patch
@ depends on patch @
expression E1, E2;
@@
- ACCESS_ONCE(E1) = E2
+ WRITE_ONCE(E1, E2)
@ depends on patch @
expression E;
@@
- ACCESS_ONCE(E)
+ READ_ONCE(E)
----
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
---
mm/memory.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index a728bed16c20..cae514e7dcfc 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -3891,9 +3891,9 @@ static int handle_pte_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
/*
* some architectures can have larger ptes than wordsize,
* e.g.ppc44x-defconfig has CONFIG_PTE_64BIT=y and
- * CONFIG_32BIT=y, so READ_ONCE or ACCESS_ONCE cannot guarantee
- * atomic accesses. The code below just needs a consistent
- * view for the ifs and we later double check anyway with the
+ * CONFIG_32BIT=y, so READ_ONCE cannot guarantee atomic
+ * accesses. The code below just needs a consistent view
+ * for the ifs and we later double check anyway with the
* ptl lock held. So here a barrier will do.
*/
barrier();
--
2.5.2
