On 01/15, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
> Am 15.01.2015 um 20:38 schrieb Oleg Nesterov:
> > On 01/15, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >>
> >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
> >> @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ static inline void arch_spin_unlock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> >> __ticket_t head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
> >>
> >> for (;;) {
> >> - struct __raw_tickets tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets);
> >> + struct __raw_tickets tmp = READ_ONCE(lock->tickets);
> >
> > Agreed, but what about another ACCESS_ONCE() above?
> >
> > Oleg.
>
> tickets.head is a scalar type, so ACCESS_ONCE does work fine with gcc 4.6/4.7.
> My goal was to convert all accesses on non-scalar types
I understand, but READ_ONCE(lock->tickets.head) looks better anyway and
arch_spin_lock() already use READ_ONCE() for this.
So why we should keep the last ACCESS_ONCE() in spinlock.h ? Just to make
another cosmetic cleanup which touches the same function later?
Oleg.
--
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>