Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 1/3] documentation: Add neededACCESS_ONCE() calls to memory-barriers.txt

[Josh Triplett]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 09:48:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> The Documentation/memory-barriers.txt file was written before the need
> for ACCESS_ONCE() was fully appreciated.  It therefore contains no
> ACCESS_ONCE() calls, which can be a problem when people lift examples
> from it.  This commit therefore adds ACCESS_ONCE() calls.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 204 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 124 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> index c8c42e64e953..eccc83a40ce1 100644
> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> @@ -194,18 +194,20 @@ There are some minimal guarantees that may be expected of a CPU:
>   (*) On any given CPU, dependent memory accesses will be issued in order, with
>       respect to itself.  This means that for:
>  
> -	Q = P; D = *Q;
> +	ACCESS_ONCE(Q) = P; smp_memory_barrier_depends(); D = ACCESS_ONCE(*Q);

That should be smp_read_barrier_depends().

Also, most of the time shouldn't that use rcu_dereference rather than a
raw smp_read_barrier_depends()?

- Josh Triplett
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/