Re: >Re: [RFC] should VM_BUG_ON(cond) really evaluate cond

Eric Dumazet
2011-10-30T17:41:38Z

Le dimanche 30 octobre 2011 à 10:07 -0700, Linus Torvalds a écrit :
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Because it doesnt work if x is const.
>
> Just remove the const. Problem solved.
>
> Both cases of 'const' are totally arbitrary and useless. The
> test_bit() one is literally a cast to const (admittedly also *from*
> const, but nobody cares), and the atomic_read() one is just because it
> uses a silly inline function where a macro would be simpler.
>

Oh well, I am lost. I always considered inline functione better because
of prototype checks.

Changing atomic_read(const atomic_t *v) prototype to
atomic_read(atomic_t *v) is not an option.

To save your time and my time, please select your favorite between :

1) The patch I did

2)
static inline int atomic_read(const atomic_t *v)
{
return ACCESS_AT_MOST_ONCE(((atomic_t *)v)->counter);
}

3)
static inline int atomic_read(const atomic_t *v)
{
return ACCESS_AT_MOST_ONCE(*(int *)&(v)->counter);
}

4) macro (I personnaly dont like it)
#define atomic_read(v) ACCESS_AT_MOST_ONCE(*(int *)&(v)->counter)

Thanks