On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:51 PM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> pmd_read_atomic() should have a built-in READ_ONCE() in the first
> place.
I really think that is the right thing to do. Let's just move the
barrier in *there* instead.
It really should use 'READ_ONCE()', but it sadly cannot do that
portably, because 'pmd_t' may be a multi-word structure.
Of course, the x86-32 code does this all *almost* right, and
implements its own version of pmd_read_atomic(), but then sadly does
it _without_ actually using READ_ONCE() there.
So even when we could do it right, we don't.
But the x86-32 implementation of pmd_read_atomic() would be trivial to
fix to just use READ_ATOMIC, and the generic implementation should
just have a "barrier()" in it so that we wouldn't need crazy barriers
in the users.
Because as you say, the function is already called "read_atomic", and
it should damn well *act* that way then.
Hmm?
Linus
