On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 04:32:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 04:22:52PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > -static __always_inline int atomic_read(const atomic_t *v)
> > +static __always_inline int arch_atomic_read(const atomic_t *v)
> > {
> > - return READ_ONCE((v)->counter);
> > + return READ_ONCE_NOCHECK((v)->counter);
>
> Should NOCHEKC come with a comment, because i've no idea why this is so.
I suspect the idea is that given the wrapper will have done the KASAN
check, duplicating it here is either sub-optimal, or results in
duplicate splats. READ_ONCE() has an implicit KASAN check,
READ_ONCE_NOCHECK() does not.
If this is to solve duplicate splats, it'd be worth having a
WRITE_ONCE_NOCHECK() for arch_atomic_set().
Agreed on the comment, regardless.
Thanks,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
