lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 00/17] Cross-architecture definitions of relaxed MMIO accessors
    Date
    On Wednesday 01 October 2014 17:23:58 Thierry Reding wrote:
    > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:50:13AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
    > > On Monday 29 September 2014 10:23:25 Thierry Reding wrote:
    > > >
    > > > How about if I keep iterating this series? It seems like most failures
    > > > can be reproduced by doing ARM defconfig and allmodconfig builds, so
    > > > I'll do those and fix up any issues I find. Hopefully I can squash all
    > > > these before 3.18-rc1, then we can take it into linux-next early for
    > > > 3.19? In the meantime perhaps I can work with Olof to get a branch with
    > > > these patches tested on his builder? And perhaps on the 0-day builder in
    > > > addition?
    > >
    > > Yes, definitely!
    > >
    > > Note that I saw a lot of problems only in randconfig build tests but
    > > not in any of the default configurations. I'll send you the fixup patch
    > > soon so you can integrate that in your series.
    >
    > One of the things I've seen a lot is warnings about volatile being
    > ignored. This is caused by my latest series dropping the volatile
    > keyword for the I/O accessors. The rationale being that use of volatile
    > should be an implementation detail of the accessors rather than the
    > function signature.

    The reason those accessors have the volatile keyword in the argument
    list is purely to silence the compiler when a driver passes a variable
    that is marked volatile.

    > Given the massive amount of changes needed to remove these warnings, is
    > it better to just keep the volatile keyword even if it's clearly wrong
    > in the context of the I/O accessors? Or should we bite the bullet and
    > remove all the wrong uses while at it?
    >
    > I suppose if we decide to remove them we can always make that a separate
    > patch series.

    Right, let's not do that now. We could put it on the kernel janitor wiki
    as a task for newbies though.

    Arnd


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-10-01 21:01    [W:4.285 / U:0.072 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site