From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com
Cc: acme@redhat.com, apw@canonical.com, joe@perches.com,
mark.rutland@arm.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
peterz@infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] tools: include: remove ACCESS_ONCE()
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:38:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171127103824.36526-3-mark.rutland@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171127103824.36526-1-mark.rutland@arm.com>
There are no longer any usersapce uses of ACCESS_ONCE(), so we can
remove the definition from our userspace <linux/compiler.h>, which is
only used by tools in the kernel directory (i.e. it isn't a uapi
header).
This patch removes the ACCESS_ONCE() definition, and updates comments
which referred to it. At the same time, some inconsistent and redundant
whitespace is removed from comments.
Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
---
tools/include/linux/compiler.h | 21 +++++++++------------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/include/linux/compiler.h b/tools/include/linux/compiler.h
index 07fd03c74a77..04e32f965ad7 100644
--- a/tools/include/linux/compiler.h
+++ b/tools/include/linux/compiler.h
@@ -84,8 +84,6 @@
#define uninitialized_var(x) x = *(&(x))
-#define ACCESS_ONCE(x) (*(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x))
-
#include <linux/types.h>
/*
@@ -135,20 +133,19 @@ static __always_inline void __write_once_size(volatile void *p, void *res, int s
/*
* Prevent the compiler from merging or refetching reads or writes. The
* compiler is also forbidden from reordering successive instances of
- * READ_ONCE, WRITE_ONCE and ACCESS_ONCE (see below), but only when the
- * compiler is aware of some particular ordering. One way to make the
- * compiler aware of ordering is to put the two invocations of READ_ONCE,
- * WRITE_ONCE or ACCESS_ONCE() in different C statements.
+ * READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE, but only when the compiler is aware of some
+ * particular ordering. One way to make the compiler aware of ordering is to
+ * put the two invocations of READ_ONCE or WRITE_ONCE in different C
+ * statements.
*
- * In contrast to ACCESS_ONCE these two macros will also work on aggregate
- * data types like structs or unions. If the size of the accessed data
- * type exceeds the word size of the machine (e.g., 32 bits or 64 bits)
- * READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() will fall back to memcpy and print a
- * compile-time warning.
+ * These two macros will also work on aggregate data types like structs or
+ * unions. If the size of the accessed data type exceeds the word size of
+ * the machine (e.g., 32 bits or 64 bits) READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() will
+ * fall back to memcpy and print a compile-time warning.
*
* Their two major use cases are: (1) Mediating communication between
* process-level code and irq/NMI handlers, all running on the same CPU,
- * and (2) Ensuring that the compiler does not fold, spindle, or otherwise
+ * and (2) Ensuring that the compiler does not fold, spindle, or otherwise
* mutilate accesses that either do not require ordering or that interact
* with an explicit memory barrier or atomic instruction that provides the
* required ordering.
--
2.11.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-27 10:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-27 10:38 [PATCH 0/4] Final ACCESS_ONCE() cleanups for v4.15 Mark Rutland
2017-11-27 10:38 ` [PATCH 1/4] perf mmap: Convert ACCESS_ONCE() to READ_ONCE() Mark Rutland
2017-12-12 15:06 ` [tip:locking/urgent] tools/perf: " tip-bot for Mark Rutland
2017-11-27 10:38 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2017-12-12 15:07 ` [tip:locking/urgent] tools/include: Remove ACCESS_ONCE() tip-bot for Mark Rutland
2017-11-27 10:38 ` [PATCH 3/4] compiler.h: remove ACCESS_ONCE() Mark Rutland
2017-12-12 15:07 ` [tip:locking/urgent] compiler.h: Remove ACCESS_ONCE() tip-bot for Mark Rutland
2017-11-27 10:38 ` [PATCH 4/4] checkpatch: remove ACCESS_ONCE() warning Mark Rutland
2017-11-27 10:50 ` Joe Perches
2017-11-27 10:58 ` Mark Rutland
2017-12-12 15:07 ` [tip:locking/urgent] checkpatch: Remove " tip-bot for Mark Rutland
2017-11-27 21:11 ` [PATCH 0/4] Final ACCESS_ONCE() cleanups for v4.15 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=20171127103824.36526-3-mark.rutland@arm.com \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=apw@canonical.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®