On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 04:07:14PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: [...] > > > > So if I respin the patch with the extern, would you still feel reluctant? > > Yes, because I am not seeing how this change helps. What is this telling > the reader that the original did not, and how does it help the reader > generate good concurrent code? >
One thing I think we probably should do is to make READ_ONCE() semantics more clear, i.e. call it out that in our conceptual model for kernel programming we always rely on the compiler to be serious about the return value of READ_ONCE(). I didn't find the comment before READ_ONCE() or memory-barriers.txt talking about something similar. Or am I the only one having this kinda semantics guarantee in mind? Regards, Boqun > Thanx, Paul > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
