Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 24 May 2019 13:24:57 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@vmware.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] compiler: Prevent evaluation of WRITE_ONCE()
Message-ID: <20190524112457.GA20149@andrea>
References: <1558694136-19226-1-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
 <1558694136-19226-3-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
 <20190524105339.GC12796@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190524105339.GC12796@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:53:40AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 
> This would be better titled as:
> 
>   compiler: don't return a value from WRITE_ONCE()

No strong opinion here: I'll adopt your suggestion in v2 if there are
no objections.  And similarly for the rcu_assign_pointer() patch.


> 
> ... since we do want the WRITE_ONCE() itself to be evaluated.
> 
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:35:36PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > Now that there's no single use of the value of WRITE_ONCE(), change
> > the implementation to eliminate it.
> 
> I hope that's the case, but it's possible that some macros might be
> relying on this, so it's probably worth waiting to see if the kbuild
> test robot screams.

Absolutely!  Does kbuild process your tree?  I might be worth to apply
the patch to just see what kbuild 'think' about it...


> 
> Otherwise, I agree that WRITE_ONCE() returning a value is surprising,
> and unnecessary. IIRC you said that trying to suport that in other
> implementations was painful, so aligning on a non-returning version
> sounds reasonable to me.

And I should probably also modify the few #define-s under tools/ (that
I missed in this iteration...)

Thanks,
  Andrea