On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 06:17:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 11:51:54AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 05:42:28PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

quoted

quoted

#define volatile_if(cond) if (({ bool __t = (cond); BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(__t)); volatile_cond(__t); }))

That won't help with more complicated examples, such as:

	volatile_if (READ_ONCE(*x) * 0 + READ_ONCE(*y))

That's effectively:

	volatile_if (READ_ONCE(*y))
		WRITE_ONCE(*y, 42);

Sorry, what I meant to write was:

	volatile_if (READ_ONCE(*x) * 0 + READ_ONCE(*y))
		WRITE_ONCE(*z, 42);

where there is no ordering between *x and *z.  It's not daft, and yes, a 
macro won't be able to warn about it.

Alan

which is a valid, but daft, LOAD->STORE order, no? A compiler might
maybe be able to WARN on that, but that's definitely beyond what we can
do with macros.