Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1338813
| From | SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers: fix wrong comment in example |
| Date | 2016-02-21 00:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r4oFk-4B6-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <r48TT-Dy-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <r4lR7-2q1-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 03:01:08PM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote: >> There is wrong comment in example for compiler store omit behavior. It >> shows example of the problem and than problem solved version code. >> However, the comment in the solved version is still same with not solved >> version. Fix the wrong statement with this commit. >> >> Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com> > > Hmmm... The code between the two stores of zero to "a" is intended to > remain the same in the broken and fixed versions. So the only change > is from "a = 0" to "WRITE_ONCE(a, 0)". Note that it is some other > CPU that did the third store to "a". Agree, of course. > > Or am I missing your point here? My point is about the comment. I thought the comment in broken version is saying "Below line(a = 0) says it will store to variable 'a', but it will not in actual because a compiler can omit it". However, in fixed version, because the compiler cannot omit the store now, I thought the comment also should be changed to say the difference between broken and fixed version. If I am understanding anything wrong, please let me know. Thanks, SeongJae Park > > Thanx, Paul > >> --- >> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt >> index 061ff29..b4754c7 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt >> @@ -1471,7 +1471,7 @@ of optimizations: >> wrong guess: >> >> WRITE_ONCE(a, 0); >> - /* Code that does not store to variable a. */ >> + /* Code that does store to variable a. */ >> WRITE_ONCE(a, 0); >> >> (*) The compiler is within its rights to reorder memory accesses unless >> -- >> 1.9.1 >> >
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers: fix wrong comment in example SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 07:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers: fix wrong comment in example "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-20 21:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers: fix wrong comment in example SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 00:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers: fix wrong comment in example SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 19:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers: fix wrong comment in example David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-02-22 11:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers: fix wrong comment in example SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers: fix wrong comment in example David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2016-02-22 12:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers: fix wrong comment in example "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-22 17:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers: fix wrong comment in example SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 22:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers: fix wrong comment in example "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-02-22 03:40 +0100
csiph-web