From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
apw@canonical.com, joe@perches.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rcu: Don't return a value from rcu_assign_pointer()
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 09:10:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190527161050.GK28207@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1558946997-25559-1-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:49:57AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> Quoting Paul [1]:
>
> "Given that a quick (and perhaps error-prone) search of the uses
> of rcu_assign_pointer() in v5.1 didn't find a single use of the
> return value, let's please instead change the documentation and
> implementation to eliminate the return value."
>
> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190523135013.GL28207@linux.ibm.com
Queued, thank you!
Adding the checkpatch maintainers on CC as well. The "do { } while
(0)" prevents the return value from being used, by design. Given the
checkpatch complaint, is there some better way to achieve this?
Thanx, Paul
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
> Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
> Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
> Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
> Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Fix documentation and style (Paul E. McKenney)
> - Improve subject line (Mark Rutland)
> ---
> Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt | 8 ++++----
> include/linux/rcupdate.h | 5 ++---
> tools/include/linux/rcu.h | 4 ++--
> tools/testing/radix-tree/linux/rcupdate.h | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
> index 981651a8b65d2..7e1a8721637ab 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
> @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ synchronize_rcu()
>
> rcu_assign_pointer()
>
> - typeof(p) rcu_assign_pointer(p, typeof(p) v);
> + void rcu_assign_pointer(p, typeof(p) v);
>
> Yes, rcu_assign_pointer() -is- implemented as a macro, though it
> would be cool to be able to declare a function in this manner.
> @@ -220,9 +220,9 @@ rcu_assign_pointer()
>
> The updater uses this function to assign a new value to an
> RCU-protected pointer, in order to safely communicate the change
> - in value from the updater to the reader. This function returns
> - the new value, and also executes any memory-barrier instructions
> - required for a given CPU architecture.
> + in value from the updater to the reader. This macro does not
> + evaluate to an rvalue, but it does execute any memory-barrier
> + instructions required for a given CPU architecture.
>
> Perhaps just as important, it serves to document (1) which
> pointers are protected by RCU and (2) the point at which a
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> index a8ed624da5556..0c9b92799abc7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ static inline void rcu_preempt_sleep_check(void) { }
> * other macros that it invokes.
> */
> #define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v) \
> -({ \
> +do { \
> uintptr_t _r_a_p__v = (uintptr_t)(v); \
> rcu_check_sparse(p, __rcu); \
> \
> @@ -375,8 +375,7 @@ static inline void rcu_preempt_sleep_check(void) { }
> WRITE_ONCE((p), (typeof(p))(_r_a_p__v)); \
> else \
> smp_store_release(&p, RCU_INITIALIZER((typeof(p))_r_a_p__v)); \
> - _r_a_p__v; \
> -})
> +} while (0)
>
> /**
> * rcu_swap_protected() - swap an RCU and a regular pointer
> diff --git a/tools/include/linux/rcu.h b/tools/include/linux/rcu.h
> index 7d02527e5bcea..9554d3fa54f33 100644
> --- a/tools/include/linux/rcu.h
> +++ b/tools/include/linux/rcu.h
> @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ static inline bool rcu_is_watching(void)
> return false;
> }
>
> -#define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v) ((p) = (v))
> -#define RCU_INIT_POINTER(p, v) p=(v)
> +#define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v) do { (p) = (v); } while (0)
> +#define RCU_INIT_POINTER(p, v) do { (p) = (v); } while (0)
>
> #endif
> diff --git a/tools/testing/radix-tree/linux/rcupdate.h b/tools/testing/radix-tree/linux/rcupdate.h
> index fd280b070fdb1..fed468fb0c78d 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/radix-tree/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/radix-tree/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -7,6 +7,6 @@
> #define rcu_dereference_raw(p) rcu_dereference(p)
> #define rcu_dereference_protected(p, cond) rcu_dereference(p)
> #define rcu_dereference_check(p, cond) rcu_dereference(p)
> -#define RCU_INIT_POINTER(p, v) (p) = (v)
> +#define RCU_INIT_POINTER(p, v) do { (p) = (v); } while (0)
>
> #endif
> --
> 2.7.4
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-27 16:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-27 8:49 [PATCH v2] rcu: Don't return a value from rcu_assign_pointer() Andrea Parri
2019-05-27 16:10 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2019-05-27 17:21 ` Joe Perches
2019-05-27 17:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-05-27 17:57 ` Joe Perches
2019-05-27 19:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190527161050.GK28207@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
--cc=apw@canonical.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.