Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-168440-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHk-=whnQXNVwuf42Sh2ngBGhBqbJjUfq5ux6e7Si_XSPAt05A@mail.gmail.com>
 <d4de136e-c4e0-45c2-b33e-9a819cb3a791@paulmck-laptop> <CAHk-=wi3iondeh_9V2g3Qz5oHTRjLsOpoy83hb58MVh=nRZe0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <892324fc-9b75-4e8a-b3b6-cf3c5b4c3506@paulmck-laptop> <CANpmjNOY=Qpm3hBu-eN4Xk8n-2VXQRvcQ3_PfwPwNw9MmC8ctw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whTakjVGgBC5OtoZ5Foo=hd4-g+NZ79nkMDVj6Ug7ARKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wiGzmJXZwHxCE6P0jVBqU4gHEm=zcfj3v+zM_S_9RF4_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1c886023-ae61-46ba-bb3c-b460c30de937@paulmck-laptop> <b3b81374-a19d-4bf5-abb3-15e48c72f01a@paulmck-laptop>
 <ZjPBPWSSdE_VcH_V@boqun-archlinux> <2beaba9f-6f83-4a7c-8835-fe5fe88a006c@paulmck-laptop>
In-Reply-To: <2beaba9f-6f83-4a7c-8835-fe5fe88a006c@paulmck-laptop>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 17:14:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wg4iAjQb_Na_1rf_EHxe7rsN24he6cjKgdOAPmn7N9oVw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tty: tty_io: remove hung_up_tty_fops
To: paulmck@kernel.org
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Marco Elver <elver@google.com>, 
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, 
	syzbot <syzbot+b7c3ba8cdc2f6cf83c21@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, 
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, 
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Fri, 3 May 2024 at 16:59, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hmmm...  Maybe something like this very lightly tested patch?

I'm a bit nervous about using the built-in atomics, when it's not
clear what the compiler will do on various architectures.

Gcc documentation talks about __atomic_is_lock_free(), which makes me
think that on various architectures it might end up doing some "fall
back to helper functions" cases (possibly for odd architectures).

IOW: I don't think the patch is wrong, but I do think we need to
verify that all compilers we support generate the obvious code for
this, and we don't have some "fall back to function calls".

                 Linus