From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756210AbbAIOHr (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2015 09:07:47 -0500 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:52266 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752602AbbAIOHq (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2015 09:07:46 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 06:07:34 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Davidlohr Bueso , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, bobby.prani@gmail.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/14] rcu: Protect rcu_boost() lockless accesses with ACCESS_ONCE() Message-ID: <20150109140734.GS5280@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20150107173215.GA897@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1420651953-2651-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150108094102.GD29390@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150108152230.GL5280@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1420785714.25454.1.camel@stgolabs.net> <20150109134954.GO5280@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150109135614.GI29390@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150109135614.GI29390@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 15010914-0005-0000-0000-000007E4DEAE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:56:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 05:49:54AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > That reminds me, I think the new conversion for stores will most likely > > > introduce silly arg bugs: > > > > > > - ACCESS_ONCE(a) = b; > > > + ASSIGN_ONCE(b, a); > > > > I was planning to do mine by hand for this sort of reason. > > > > Or are you thinking of something more subtle than the case where > > "b" is an unparenthesized comma-separated expression? > > I think he's revering to the wrong way around-ness of the thing. > > Its a bit of a mixed bag on assignments, but for instance > rcu_assign_pointer() takes them the right way around, as does > atomic_set(). > > So yes, I think the ASSIGN_ONCE() thing got the arguments the wrong way > around. Ah, yes, I had forgotten about this point. > We could maybe still change it, before its in too long ? I would be in favor. Any objections? ;-) Thanx, Paul