On Wed, 3 Apr 2013, Johannes Weiner wrote: > The definition of ACCESS_ONCE() relies on gcc's current > implementation, the users of ACCESS_ONCE() only rely on ACCESS_ONCE() > being defined. > > Should it ever break you have to either fix it at the implementation > level or remove/replace the abstraction in its entirety, how does the > individual callsite matter in this case? > As stated, it doesn't. I made the comment "for what it's worth" that ACCESS_ONCE() doesn't do anything to "prevent the compiler from re-fetching" as the changelog insists it does. I'd much rather it refer to gcc's implementation, which we're counting on here, to avoid any confusion since I know a couple people have thought that ACCESS_ONCE() forces the compiler to load memory onto the stack and that belief is completely and utterly wrong. -- 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>