redonkable
/
remarkable-linux
1
0
Fork 0
Code Releases Activity

Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: Fix ACCESS_ONCE thinko 

In commit 2ecf810121 ("Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: Add
needed ACCESS_ONCE() calls to memory-barriers.txt") the statement
"Q = P" was converted to "ACCESS_ONCE(Q) = P".  This should have
been "Q = ACCESS_ONCE(P)".  It later became "WRITE_ONCE(Q, P)".
This doesn't match the following text, which is "Q = LOAD P".
Change the statement to be "Q = READ_ONCE(P)".

Signed-off-by: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
steinar/wifi_calib_4_9_kernel
Chris Metcalf 2015-11-23 17:04:17 -05:00 committed by Paul E. McKenney
parent c64c4b0f9a
commit f84cfbb0ff
1 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
View File

@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ There are some minimal guarantees that may be expected of a CPU:
(*) On any given CPU, dependent memory accesses will be issued in order, with
respect to itself. This means that for:
WRITE_ONCE(Q, P); smp_read_barrier_depends(); D = READ_ONCE(*Q);
Q = READ_ONCE(P); smp_read_barrier_depends(); D = READ_ONCE(*Q);
the CPU will issue the following memory operations:
@ -202,9 +202,9 @@ There are some minimal guarantees that may be expected of a CPU:
and always in that order. On most systems, smp_read_barrier_depends()
does nothing, but it is required for DEC Alpha. The READ_ONCE()
and WRITE_ONCE() are required to prevent compiler mischief. Please
note that you should normally use something like rcu_dereference()
instead of open-coding smp_read_barrier_depends().
is required to prevent compiler mischief. Please note that you
should normally use something like rcu_dereference() instead of
open-coding smp_read_barrier_depends().
(*) Overlapping loads and stores within a particular CPU will appear to be
ordered within that CPU. This means that for: