locking/atomics: COCCINELLE/treewide: Convert trivial ACCESS_ONCE() patterns to READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE()
Please do not apply this to mainline directly, instead please re-run the coccinelle script shown below and apply its output. For several reasons, it is desirable to use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in preference to ACCESS_ONCE(), and new code is expected to use one of the former. So far, there's been no reason to change most existing uses of ACCESS_ONCE(), as these aren't harmful, and changing them results in churn. However, for some features, the read/write distinction is critical to correct operation. To distinguish these cases, separate read/write accessors must be used. This patch migrates (most) remaining ACCESS_ONCE() instances to {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(), using the following coccinelle script: ---- // Convert trivial ACCESS_ONCE() uses to equivalent READ_ONCE() and // WRITE_ONCE() // $ make coccicheck COCCI=/home/mark/once.cocci SPFLAGS="--include-headers" MODE=patch virtual patch @ depends on patch @ expression E1, E2; @@ - ACCESS_ONCE(E1) = E2 + WRITE_ONCE(E1, E2) @ depends on patch @ expression E; @@ - ACCESS_ONCE(E) + READ_ONCE(E) ---- Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: davem@davemloft.net Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: mpe@ellerman.id.au Cc: shuah@kernel.org Cc: snitzer@redhat.com Cc: thor.thayer@linux.intel.com Cc: tj@kernel.org Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Cc: will.deacon@arm.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1508792849-3115-19-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:

committed by
Ingo Molnar

parent
b03a0fe0c5
commit
6aa7de0591
@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ void scif_rb_commit(struct scif_rb *rb)
|
||||
* the read barrier in scif_rb_count(..)
|
||||
*/
|
||||
wmb();
|
||||
ACCESS_ONCE(*rb->write_ptr) = rb->current_write_offset;
|
||||
WRITE_ONCE(*rb->write_ptr, rb->current_write_offset);
|
||||
#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_MIC_CARD
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* X100 Si bug: For the case where a Core is performing an EXT_WR
|
||||
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ void scif_rb_commit(struct scif_rb *rb)
|
||||
* This way, if ordering is violated for the Interrupt Message, it will
|
||||
* fall just behind the first Posted associated with the first EXT_WR.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
ACCESS_ONCE(*rb->write_ptr) = rb->current_write_offset;
|
||||
WRITE_ONCE(*rb->write_ptr, rb->current_write_offset);
|
||||
#endif
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ void scif_rb_update_read_ptr(struct scif_rb *rb)
|
||||
* scif_rb_space(..)
|
||||
*/
|
||||
mb();
|
||||
ACCESS_ONCE(*rb->read_ptr) = new_offset;
|
||||
WRITE_ONCE(*rb->read_ptr, new_offset);
|
||||
#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_MIC_CARD
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* X100 Si Bug: For the case where a Core is performing an EXT_WR
|
||||
@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ void scif_rb_update_read_ptr(struct scif_rb *rb)
|
||||
* This way, if ordering is violated for the Interrupt Message, it will
|
||||
* fall just behind the first Posted associated with the first EXT_WR.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
ACCESS_ONCE(*rb->read_ptr) = new_offset;
|
||||
WRITE_ONCE(*rb->read_ptr, new_offset);
|
||||
#endif
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user