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
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
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
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
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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo