From b899a850431e2dd0943205a63a68573f3e312d0d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mark Rutland Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:38:23 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] compiler.h: Remove ACCESS_ONCE() There are no longer any kernelspace uses of ACCESS_ONCE(), so we can remove the definition from . This patch removes the ACCESS_ONCE() definition, and updates comments which referred to it. At the same time, some inconsistent and redundant whitespace is removed from comments. Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: Joe Perches Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: apw@canonical.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171127103824.36526-4-mark.rutland@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- include/linux/compiler.h | 47 ++++++++++------------------------------ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/compiler.h b/include/linux/compiler.h index 188ed9f65517..52e611ab9a6c 100644 --- a/include/linux/compiler.h +++ b/include/linux/compiler.h @@ -220,21 +220,21 @@ static __always_inline void __write_once_size(volatile void *p, void *res, int s /* * Prevent the compiler from merging or refetching reads or writes. The * compiler is also forbidden from reordering successive instances of - * READ_ONCE, WRITE_ONCE and ACCESS_ONCE (see below), but only when the - * compiler is aware of some particular ordering. One way to make the - * compiler aware of ordering is to put the two invocations of READ_ONCE, - * WRITE_ONCE or ACCESS_ONCE() in different C statements. + * READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE, but only when the compiler is aware of some + * particular ordering. One way to make the compiler aware of ordering is to + * put the two invocations of READ_ONCE or WRITE_ONCE in different C + * statements. * - * In contrast to ACCESS_ONCE these two macros will also work on aggregate - * data types like structs or unions. If the size of the accessed data - * type exceeds the word size of the machine (e.g., 32 bits or 64 bits) - * READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() will fall back to memcpy(). There's at - * least two memcpy()s: one for the __builtin_memcpy() and then one for - * the macro doing the copy of variable - '__u' allocated on the stack. + * These two macros will also work on aggregate data types like structs or + * unions. If the size of the accessed data type exceeds the word size of + * the machine (e.g., 32 bits or 64 bits) READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() will + * fall back to memcpy(). There's at least two memcpy()s: one for the + * __builtin_memcpy() and then one for the macro doing the copy of variable + * - '__u' allocated on the stack. * * Their two major use cases are: (1) Mediating communication between * process-level code and irq/NMI handlers, all running on the same CPU, - * and (2) Ensuring that the compiler does not fold, spindle, or otherwise + * and (2) Ensuring that the compiler does not fold, spindle, or otherwise * mutilate accesses that either do not require ordering or that interact * with an explicit memory barrier or atomic instruction that provides the * required ordering. @@ -327,29 +327,4 @@ static __always_inline void __write_once_size(volatile void *p, void *res, int s compiletime_assert(__native_word(t), \ "Need native word sized stores/loads for atomicity.") -/* - * Prevent the compiler from merging or refetching accesses. The compiler - * is also forbidden from reordering successive instances of ACCESS_ONCE(), - * but only when the compiler is aware of some particular ordering. One way - * to make the compiler aware of ordering is to put the two invocations of - * ACCESS_ONCE() in different C statements. - * - * ACCESS_ONCE will only work on scalar types. For union types, ACCESS_ONCE - * on a union member will work as long as the size of the member matches the - * size of the union and the size is smaller than word size. - * - * The major use cases of ACCESS_ONCE used to be (1) Mediating communication - * between process-level code and irq/NMI handlers, all running on the same CPU, - * and (2) Ensuring that the compiler does not fold, spindle, or otherwise - * mutilate accesses that either do not require ordering or that interact - * with an explicit memory barrier or atomic instruction that provides the - * required ordering. - * - * If possible use READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() instead. - */ -#define __ACCESS_ONCE(x) ({ \ - __maybe_unused typeof(x) __var = (__force typeof(x)) 0; \ - (volatile typeof(x) *)&(x); }) -#define ACCESS_ONCE(x) (*__ACCESS_ONCE(x)) - #endif /* __LINUX_COMPILER_H */