Message-ID: <1460881671.19090.90.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Whine about ACCESS_ONCE
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 01:27:51 -0700
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604170743060.2068@localhost6.localdomain6>
References: <1460828078-5224-1-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
	 <1460833453.19090.79.camel@perches.com>
	 <1460836099.19090.82.camel@perches.com>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604170743060.2068@localhost6.localdomain6>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 943
Lines: 38

On Sun, 2016-04-17 at 07:43 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2016-04-16 at 12:04 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > Add a test for use of ACCESS_ONCE that could be written using
> > > READ_ONCE or WRITE_ONCE.
> > >?
> > > --fix it too if desired.
> >?
> > And here's a simple coccinelle script that does a
> > rather better job:
> >?
> > $ cat access_once.cocci
> > @@
> > expression e1;
> > expression e2;
> > @@
> >?
> > -?????ACCESS_ONCE(e1) = e2
> > +?????WRITE_ONCE(e1, e2)
> >?
> > @@
> > expression e1;
> > @@
> >?
> > -?????ACCESS_ONCE(e1)
> > +?????READ_ONCE(e1)
> 
> Looks good to me.? Is this something to put in the kernel?

Maybe. ?There are more than 500 of these ACCESS_ONCE
uses that could be converted.

The kernel cocci scripts are typically more complicated
with virtual org/report/context/patch blocks.

So perhaps this needs to be fleshed out more.

Works for me as-is though.