On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:57:25AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 17:41 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:27:54AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > Once ACCESS_ONCE is removed from the code in the tree
> > > it can also be removed from checkpatch
> >
> >
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:57:25AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 17:41 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:27:54AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > Once ACCESS_ONCE is removed from the code in the tree
> > > it can also be removed from checkpatch
> >
> >
On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 17:41 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:27:54AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Once ACCESS_ONCE is removed from the code in the tree
> > it can also be removed from checkpatch
>
> Sure thing. We're expecting to rip that out with the ACCESS_ONCE
>
On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 17:41 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:27:54AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Once ACCESS_ONCE is removed from the code in the tree
> > it can also be removed from checkpatch
>
> Sure thing. We're expecting to rip that out with the ACCESS_ONCE
>
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:27:54AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 07:52 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:50:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:47:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:27:54AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 07:52 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:50:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:47:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:24:42PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 07:52:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:50:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:47:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:24:42PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 07:52:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:50:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:47:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:27:54AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 07:52 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:50:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:47:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:27:54AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 07:52 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:50:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:47:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at
On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 07:52 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:50:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:47:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:54:14AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at
On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 07:52 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:50:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:47:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:54:14AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 07:52:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:50:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:47:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:54:14AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > I've assumed that the
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 07:52:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:50:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:47:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:54:14AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > I've assumed that the
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:50:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:47:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:54:14AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 12:51:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:50:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:47:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:54:14AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 12:51:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:47:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:54:14AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 12:51:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:28:50PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > diff --git
> > > >
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:47:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:54:14AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 12:51:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:28:50PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > diff --git
> > > >
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:54:14AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 12:51:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:28:50PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > diff --git
> > > a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/formal/srcu-cbmc/src/barriers.h
> > >
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:54:14AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 12:51:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:28:50PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > diff --git
> > > a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/formal/srcu-cbmc/src/barriers.h
> > >
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 12:51:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:28:50PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > diff --git
> > a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/formal/srcu-cbmc/src/barriers.h
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/formal/srcu-cbmc/src/barriers.h
> >
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 12:51:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:28:50PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > diff --git
> > a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/formal/srcu-cbmc/src/barriers.h
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/formal/srcu-cbmc/src/barriers.h
> >
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:28:50PM +0100, 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
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:28:50PM +0100, 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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo