On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 06:43:45PM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> Regarding the volatile access, I hope that the C11 memory model
> and enhancements to the compiler will some day provide a better
> way to express the semantics of what is tried to express here
> (__atomic_store_n/__atomic_load_n with the accompanied memory model,
> which could be even weaker to what a volatile access would enfore
> now and could guarantee atomic stores/loads).
I just played around a bit more. Perhaps we could try to warn of silly
usages of ACCESS_ONCE():
--- a/include/linux/compiler.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
@@ -349,7 +349,11 @@ void ftrace_likely_update(struct ftrace_branch_data *f,
int val, int expect);
* use is to mediate communication between process-level code and irq/NMI
* handlers, all running on the same CPU.
*/
-#define ACCESS_ONCE(x) (*(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x))
+#define ACCESS_ONCE(x) (*({ \
+ compiletime_assert(sizeof(typeof(x)) <= sizeof(typeof(&x)), \
+ "ACCESS_ONCE likely not atomic"); \
+ (volatile typeof(x) *)&(x); \
+}))
/* Ignore/forbid kprobes attach on very low level functions marked by this
attribute: */
#ifdef CONFIG_KPROBES
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
