From: "George Spelvin" <linux@horizon.com>
To: borntraeger@de.ibm.com
Cc: linux@horizon.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] kernel: Provide READ_ONCE and ASSIGN_ONCE
Date: 5 Dec 2014 16:38:01 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141205213801.3844.qmail@ns.horizon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzzEhbkoXnVGXAbq-HxejmWSyjMBN_aQM61J_zZLPXwAw@mail.gmail.com>
> Of prefer it to match the put_user model, which is (val, ptr). But as long
> as there is your safety (and the whole point of the macro is that it
> figures out the type from the pointer), I guess it doesn't matter too much
> in practice.
>
> I think my original suggestion also wrote it in lower case, since it
> actually works like a function (well, template, whatever). Again kind of
> like the user copy "functions".
>
> But I don't care *that* strongly.
That's an excellent point. But it means that Christian, you're free to
do whatever seems good to you.
I'm not rabid about it, either; I just figure that now is a good time
to think carefully about it.
Personally, after running through some different names that work
with (src,dst) order I'd try the pairs:
READ_ONCE(var) / WRITE_ONCE(value,var)
or
LOAD_ONCE(var) / STORE_ONCE(value,var)
Of the two, I think I prefer the latter, because that's what the
operations are called at the hardware level, so it's most evocative of
the actual semantics. "Assignment" is a higher-level concept.
But as I said, whatever you think best. I'd just like to advocate for
some actual thinking, because it's going to be all over the kernel and
a pain to change.
next parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-05 21:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CA+55aFzzEhbkoXnVGXAbq-HxejmWSyjMBN_aQM61J_zZLPXwAw@mail.gmail.com>
2014-12-05 21:38 ` George Spelvin [this message]
2014-12-05 2:12 George Spelvin
2014-12-05 9:19 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-12-05 16:00 ` George Spelvin
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-12-03 22:30 [PATCHv4 0/9] ACCESS_ONCE and non-scalar accesses Christian Borntraeger
2014-12-03 22:30 ` [PATCH 1/9] kernel: Provide READ_ONCE and ASSIGN_ONCE Christian Borntraeger
2014-12-04 0:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-12-04 9:24 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-12-04 14:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20141205213801.3844.qmail@ns.horizon.com \
--to=linux@horizon.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome