On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:45:04AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Mark Rutland writes:
>
> > 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
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:45:04AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Mark Rutland writes:
>
> > 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
Mark Rutland writes:
> 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
Mark Rutland writes:
> 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.
>
>
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