From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932485AbdJJQ0Q (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:26:16 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:47354 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S932089AbdJJQ0O (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:26:14 -0400
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:24:42 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] rcutorture: formal: prepare for ACCESS_ONCE()
 removal
Message-ID: <20171010162441.GM27659@leverpostej>
References: <1507573730-8083-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <1507573730-8083-14-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <20171009195112.GL3521@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20171010095413.GE27659@leverpostej>
 <20171010124712.GV3521@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20171010125039.GI27659@leverpostej>
 <20171010145252.GX3521@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171010145252.GX3521@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 07:52:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:50:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:47:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:54:14AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:

> > > > I've assumed that the ACCESS_ONCE() definition needs to be kept until
> > > > that's ripped out treewide. Please shout if that's not the case!
> > > 
> > > You have it right.  This case is an exception because this code is
> > > used only by RCU, which has long since had ACCESS_ONCE() ripped out.
> > 
> > Sorry; I meant that in this case, I leave this code as:
> > 
> > #define ACCESS_ONCE(x) (*(volatile typeof(x) *) &(x))
> > #define READ_ONCE(x) (*(volatile typeof(x) *) &(x))
> > #define WRITE_ONCE(x) ((*(volatile typeof(x) *) &(x)) = (val))
> > 
> > ... if you mean that we can drop ACCESS_ONCE() in this case, then I can
> > rip that out.
> 
> We can drop ACCESS_ONCE() in this case.

Done. Sorry for the confusion!

Thanks,
Mark.