From: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
To: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Jeff King" <peff@peff.net>,
"Torsten Bögershausen" <tboegi@web.de>,
"Eric Sunshine" <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 18/25] struct lock_file: declare some fields volatile
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:36:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <534EA36E.1030208@alum.mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <534CD7D2.4060005@viscovery.net>
On 04/15/2014 08:55 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 4/14/2014 15:54, schrieb Michael Haggerty:
>> The function remove_lock_file_on_signal() is used as a signal handler.
>> It is not realistic to make the signal handler conform strictly to the
>> C standard, which is very restrictive about what a signal handler is
>> allowed to do. But let's increase the likelihood that it will work:
>>
>> The lock_file_list global variable and several fields from struct
>> lock_file are used by the signal handler. Declare those values
>> "volatile" to increase the chance that the signal handler will see a
>> valid object state.
>
> Yes, it's important that the signal handler sees a valid object state, and
> "volatile" can help here. But I think the reason why it helps is not
> obvious, and it should be mentioned in the commit message:
>
> It is not so much that "volatile" forces the compiler to lay down each
> access of the variable coded in C in the assembly code, but more
> importantly, that "volatile" disallows any re-ordering of these accesses.
> Then:
>
> - 'lock->active = 1' must be the last assignment during setup
>
> - 'lock->active = 0' must be the first assignment during tear-down.
>
> - Ideally, all members of struct lock_file should be "volatile".
>
> The last point is important because the compiler is allowed to re-order
> accesses to non-"volatile" variables across "volatile" accesses. I say
> "ideally" because if filename were defined "volatile filename[PATH_MAX]",
> strcpy() could not be used anymore. OTOH, it is unlikely that a compiler
> re-orders a strcpy() call across other expressions, and we can get away
> without "volatile" in the "filename" case in practice.
Thanks for the clarification. I will edit the commit message to better
explain the rationale.
>> Suggested-by: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
>
> Not a big deal, but just in case you re-roll again and you do not forget:
>
> Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
>
> is preferred.
ACK.
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-16 15:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-14 13:54 [PATCH v3 00/25] Lockfile correctness and refactoring Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 01/25] unable_to_lock_die(): rename function from unable_to_lock_index_die() Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 02/25] api-lockfile: expand the documentation Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 03/25] rollback_lock_file(): do not clear filename redundantly Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 04/25] rollback_lock_file(): set fd to -1 Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 05/25] lockfile: unlock file if lockfile permissions cannot be adjusted Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 06/25] hold_lock_file_for_append(): release lock on errors Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 07/25] lock_file(): always add lock_file object to lock_file_list Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 08/25] lockfile.c: document the various states of lock_file objects Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 09/25] cache.h: define constants LOCK_SUFFIX and LOCK_SUFFIX_LEN Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 10/25] delete_ref_loose(): don't muck around in the lock_file's filename Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 11/25] prepare_index(): declare return value to be (const char *) Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 12/25] write_packed_entry_fn(): convert cb_data into a (const int *) Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 13/25] lock_file(): exit early if lockfile cannot be opened Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 14/25] remove_lock_file(): call rollback_lock_file() Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 15/25] commit_lock_file(): inline temporary variable Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 16/25] commit_lock_file(): die() if called for unlocked lockfile object Michael Haggerty
2014-04-15 6:49 ` Johannes Sixt
2014-04-16 15:17 ` Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 17/25] lockfile: avoid transitory invalid states Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 18/25] struct lock_file: declare some fields volatile Michael Haggerty
2014-04-15 6:55 ` Johannes Sixt
2014-04-16 15:36 ` Michael Haggerty [this message]
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 19/25] try_merge_strategy(): remove redundant lock_file allocation Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 20/25] try_merge_strategy(): use a statically-allocated lock_file object Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 21/25] commit_lock_file(): use a strbuf to manage temporary space Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 22/25] Change lock_file::filename into a strbuf Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 23/25] resolve_symlink(): use a strbuf for internal scratch space Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 24/25] resolve_symlink(): take a strbuf parameter Michael Haggerty
2014-04-14 13:54 ` [PATCH v3 25/25] trim_last_path_elm(): replace last_path_elm() Michael Haggerty
2014-04-15 18:40 ` [PATCH v3 00/25] Lockfile correctness and refactoring Torsten Bögershausen
2014-04-16 19:50 ` Michael Haggerty
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=534EA36E.1030208@alum.mit.edu \
--to=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=j.sixt@viscovery.net \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
--cc=tboegi@web.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).