Re: [PATCH 02/13] EDAC, altera: kill off ACCESS_ONCE()

2017-10-10 Thread Mark Rutland
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 06:12:10PM -0500, Thor Thayer wrote: > On 10/09/2017 01:28 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > >diff --git a/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c b/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c > >index 346c498..11d6419 100644 > >--- a/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c > >+++ b/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c > >@@ -175,11

Re: [PATCH 02/13] EDAC, altera: kill off ACCESS_ONCE()

2017-10-10 Thread Mark Rutland
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 06:12:10PM -0500, Thor Thayer wrote: > On 10/09/2017 01:28 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > >diff --git a/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c b/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c > >index 346c498..11d6419 100644 > >--- a/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c > >+++ b/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c > >@@ -175,11

Re: [PATCH 02/13] EDAC, altera: kill off ACCESS_ONCE()

2017-10-09 Thread Thor Thayer
On 10/09/2017 01:28 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: For several reasons, it is desirable to use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in preference to ACCESS_ONCE(), and new code is expected to use one of the former. So far, there's been no reason to change most existing uses of ACCESS_ONCE(), as these aren't currently

Re: [PATCH 02/13] EDAC, altera: kill off ACCESS_ONCE()

2017-10-09 Thread Thor Thayer
On 10/09/2017 01:28 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: For several reasons, it is desirable to use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in preference to ACCESS_ONCE(), and new code is expected to use one of the former. So far, there's been no reason to change most existing uses of ACCESS_ONCE(), as these aren't currently

[PATCH 02/13] EDAC, altera: kill off ACCESS_ONCE()

2017-10-09 Thread Mark Rutland
For several reasons, it is desirable to use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in preference to ACCESS_ONCE(), and new code is expected to use one of the former. So far, there's been no reason to change most existing uses of ACCESS_ONCE(), as these aren't currently harmful. However, for some features it is

[PATCH 02/13] EDAC, altera: kill off ACCESS_ONCE()

2017-10-09 Thread Mark Rutland
For several reasons, it is desirable to use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in preference to ACCESS_ONCE(), and new code is expected to use one of the former. So far, there's been no reason to change most existing uses of ACCESS_ONCE(), as these aren't currently harmful. However, for some features it is