Re: >Re: [RFC] should VM_BUG_ON(cond) really evaluate cond

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "Sane interfaces" are important. Insane interfaces lead to bugs.

Qutie frankly, if I do "atomic_read()", I do expect to get a single
value. If I don't get a single value, but some mixture of two values,
I'd personally go

  wtf, what does that "atomic" mean in "atomic_read()"?

and I think that's a reasonable wtf to ask.

That said, as mentioned, I don't know of any way to tell gcc "at most once".

Hmm.

Except perhaps using inline asm. Something like this might work:

  static inline int atomic_read(const atomic_t *v)
  {
       int val;
       asm("":"=r" (val):"0" (v->value));
       return val;
  }

(totally untested, but you get the idea: use a non-volatile asm to
make sure that gcc doesn't think it can re-load the value).

That's the trick we use in asmlinkage_protect() and a couple of other
places. It *should* make gcc able to optimize the value away entirely
if it isn't used, but will stop gcc from doing the reload magic.

Does that work for the test-case with VM_BUG_ON()?

                          Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/