[PATCHv4 01/12] atomic/tty: Fix up atomic abuse in ldsem
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
Date: 2018-07-24 09:23:32
Also in:
lkml
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:20:36AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:15:18AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:quoted
* Mark Rutland [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Mark found ldsem_cmpxchg() needed an (atomic_long_t *) cast to keep working after making the atomic_long interface type safe. Needing casts is bad form, which made me look at the code. There are no ld_semaphore::count users outside of these functions so there is no reason why it can not be an atomic_long_t in the first place, obviating the need for this cast. That also ensures the loads use atomic_long_read(), which implies (at least) READ_ONCE() in order to guarantee single-copy-atomic loads. When using atomic_long_try_cmpxchg() the ldsem_cmpxchg() wrapper gets very thin (the only difference is not changing *old on success, which most callers don't seem to care about). So rework the whole thing to use atomic_long_t and its accessors directly. While there, fixup all the horrible comment styles. Cc: Peter Hurley <redacted> Acked-by: Will Deacon <redacted> Reported-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <redacted> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> --- drivers/tty/tty_ldsem.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------- include/linux/tty_ldisc.h | 4 +-- 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-) Note: Greg has queued this via the in the tty tree for v4.19, which can be seen at: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/tty.git/commit/?h=tty-next&id=5fd691afdf929061c391d897fa627822c3b2fd5aCan this patch be skipped, or do the others depend on it?IIRC it depends on it, without this patch you get build issues due to atomic_long_cmpxchg() getting picky about it's arguments (type safety improved).
Yup. Without this patch, there will be a build regression at patch 9, when we move to generated atomic_long_*() wrappers. Thanks, Mark.