From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, will.deacon@arm.com, aryabinin@virtuozzo.com, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] asm-generic: add atomic-instrumented.h Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:43:39 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170330064339.GA20935@gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20170329171526.GB26135@leverpostej> * Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > With some minimal CPP, it can be a lot more manageable: > > ---- > #define INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(order) \ > static __always_inline int atomic_xchg##order(atomic_t *v, int i) \ > { \ > kasan_check_write(v, sizeof(*v)); \ > arch_atomic_xchg##order(v, i); \ > } > > #define INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG() > > #ifdef arch_atomic_xchg_relaxed > INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(_relaxed) > #define atomic_xchg_relaxed atomic_xchg_relaxed > #endif > > #ifdef arch_atomic_xchg_acquire > INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(_acquire) > #define atomic_xchg_acquire atomic_xchg_acquire > #endif > > #ifdef arch_atomic_xchg_relaxed > INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(_relaxed) > #define atomic_xchg_relaxed atomic_xchg_relaxed > #endif Yeah, small detail: the third one wants to be _release, right? > Is there any objection to some light CPP usage as above for adding the > {relaxed,acquire,release} variants? No objection from me to that way of writing it, this still looks very readable, and probably more readable than the verbose variants. It's similar in style to linux/atomic.h which has a good balance of C versus CPP. What I objected to was the deep nested code generation approach in the original patch. CPP is fine in many circumstances, but there's a level of (ab-)use where it becomes counterproductive. Thanks, Ingo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, will.deacon@arm.com, aryabinin@virtuozzo.com, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] asm-generic: add atomic-instrumented.h Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:43:39 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170330064339.GA20935@gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20170329171526.GB26135@leverpostej> * Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > With some minimal CPP, it can be a lot more manageable: > > ---- > #define INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(order) \ > static __always_inline int atomic_xchg##order(atomic_t *v, int i) \ > { \ > kasan_check_write(v, sizeof(*v)); \ > arch_atomic_xchg##order(v, i); \ > } > > #define INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG() > > #ifdef arch_atomic_xchg_relaxed > INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(_relaxed) > #define atomic_xchg_relaxed atomic_xchg_relaxed > #endif > > #ifdef arch_atomic_xchg_acquire > INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(_acquire) > #define atomic_xchg_acquire atomic_xchg_acquire > #endif > > #ifdef arch_atomic_xchg_relaxed > INSTR_ATOMIC_XCHG(_relaxed) > #define atomic_xchg_relaxed atomic_xchg_relaxed > #endif Yeah, small detail: the third one wants to be _release, right? > Is there any objection to some light CPP usage as above for adding the > {relaxed,acquire,release} variants? No objection from me to that way of writing it, this still looks very readable, and probably more readable than the verbose variants. It's similar in style to linux/atomic.h which has a good balance of C versus CPP. What I objected to was the deep nested code generation approach in the original patch. CPP is fine in many circumstances, but there's a level of (ab-)use where it becomes counterproductive. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-30 6:43 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2017-03-28 16:15 [PATCH 0/8] x86, kasan: add KASAN checks to atomic operations Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-28 16:15 ` [PATCH 1/8] x86: remove unused atomic_inc_short() Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-28 16:15 ` [PATCH 2/8] x86: un-macro-ify atomic ops implementation Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-28 16:15 ` [PATCH 3/8] x86: use long long for 64-bit atomic ops Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-28 16:15 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-28 21:32 ` Matthew Wilcox 2017-03-28 21:32 ` Matthew Wilcox 2017-05-26 19:29 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2017-05-26 19:29 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-28 16:15 ` [PATCH 4/8] asm-generic: add atomic-instrumented.h Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-28 16:15 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-28 21:35 ` Matthew Wilcox 2017-03-28 21:35 ` Matthew Wilcox 2017-03-29 8:21 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-29 8:21 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-29 13:27 ` Mark Rutland 2017-03-29 13:27 ` Mark Rutland 2017-03-29 17:15 ` Mark Rutland 2017-03-29 17:15 ` Mark Rutland 2017-03-30 6:43 ` Ingo Molnar [this message] 2017-03-30 6:43 ` Ingo Molnar 2017-03-30 10:40 ` Mark Rutland 2017-03-30 10:40 ` Mark Rutland 2017-03-28 16:15 ` [PATCH 5/8] x86: switch atomic.h to use atomic-instrumented.h Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-28 16:15 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-28 16:25 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-28 16:25 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-29 13:37 ` Mark Rutland 2017-03-29 13:37 ` Mark Rutland 2017-05-26 19:28 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2017-05-26 19:28 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-28 16:15 ` [PATCH 6/8] kasan: allow kasan_check_read/write() to accept pointers to volatiles Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-28 16:15 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-28 16:15 ` [PATCH 7/8] asm-generic: add KASAN instrumentation to atomic operations Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-28 16:15 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-29 14:00 ` Mark Rutland 2017-03-29 14:00 ` Mark Rutland 2017-03-29 15:52 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-29 15:52 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-29 15:56 ` Mark Rutland 2017-03-29 15:56 ` Mark Rutland 2017-03-28 16:15 ` [PATCH 8/8] asm-generic, x86: add comments for atomic instrumentation Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-28 16:15 ` Dmitry Vyukov 2017-03-28 16:26 ` [PATCH 0/8] x86, kasan: add KASAN checks to atomic operations Dmitry Vyukov
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20170330064339.GA20935@gmail.com \ --to=mingo@kernel.org \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=aryabinin@virtuozzo.com \ --cc=dvyukov@google.com \ --cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \ --cc=mingo@redhat.com \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \ --cc=x86@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.