On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:04 PM, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Reserve ACCESS_ONCE() for reading and add an ASSIGN_ONCE() or something like
> that for writing?
I wouldn't mind that. We've had situations where reading and writing
isn't really similar - like alpha where reading a byte is atomic, but
writing one isn't.
Then we could also make it have the "get_user()/put_user()" kind of
semantics - .and then use the same "sizeopf()" tricks that we use for
get_user/put_user.
That would actually work around the gcc bug a completely different way:
#define ACCESS_ONCE(p) \
({ typeof(*p) __val; __read_once_size(p, &__val, sizeof(__val)); __val; })
and then we can do things like this:
static __always_inline void __read_once_size(volatile void *p, void
*res, int size)
{
switch (size) {
case 1: *(u8 *)res = *(volatile u8 *)p; break;
case 2: *(u16 *)res = *(volatile u16 *)p; break;
case 4: *(u32 *)res = *(volatile u32 *)p; break;
#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
case 8: *(u64 *)res = *(volatile u64 *)p; break;
#endif
}
}
and same for ASSIGN_ONCE(val, p).
That also hopefully avoids the whole "oops, gcc has a bug", because
the actual volatile access is always done using a scalar type, even if
the type of "__val" may in fact be a structure.
Christian, how painful would that be? Sorry to try to make you do a
totally different approach..
Linus
