Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] bitops: always define asm-generic non-atomic bitops

[Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 04:33:17PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 at 16:21, Alexander Lobakin
> <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> > Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 18:32:36 +0200
> >
> > > On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 18:02, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > +/**
> > > > > > + * generic_test_bit - Determine whether a bit is set
> > > > > > + * @nr: bit number to test
> > > > > > + * @addr: Address to start counting from
> > > > > > + */
> > > > >
> > > > > Shouldn't we add in this or in separate patch a big NOTE to explain that this
> > > > > is actually atomic and must be kept as a such?
> > > >
> > > > "atomic" isn't really the right word. The volatile access makes sure that the
> > > > compiler does the test at the point that the source code asked, and doesn't
> > > > move it before/after other operations.
> > >
> > > It's listed in Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt.
> >
> > Oh, so my memory was actually correct that I saw it in the docs
> > somewhere.
> > WDYT, should I mention this here in the code (block comment) as well
> > that it's atomic and must not lose `volatile` as Andy suggested or
> > it's sufficient to have it in the docs (+ it's not underscored)?
> 
> Perhaps a quick comment in the code (not kerneldoc above) will be
> sufficient, with reference to Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt.

If it may help, we can do:

/*
 * Bit testing is a naturally atomic operation because bit is 
 * a minimal quantum of information.
 */
#define __test_bit test_bit