On 12.12.19 21:49, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 11:34 AM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> The root of my concern in all of this, and what started me looking at it in
>> the first place, is the interaction with 'typeof()'. Inheriting 'volatile'
>> for a pointer means that local variables in macros declared using typeof()
>> suddenly start generating *hideous* code, particularly when pointless stack
>> spills get stackprotector all excited.
>
> Yeah, removing volatile can be a bit annoying.
>
> For the particular case of the bitops, though, it's not an issue.
> Since you know the type there, you can just cast it.
>
> And if we had the rule that READ_ONCE() was an arithmetic type, you could do
>
> typeof(0+(*p)) __var;
>
> since you might as well get the integer promotion anyway (on the
> non-volatile result).
>
> But that doesn't work with structures or unions, of course.
We do have a READ_ONCE on the following union in s390 code.
union ipte_control {
unsigned long val;
struct {
unsigned long k : 1;
unsigned long kh : 31;
unsigned long kg : 32;
};
};
In fact this one was the original failure case why we change ACCESS_ONCE.
see arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
