lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] driver core: fix shutdown races with probe/remove
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > That just seems wrong. By the same reasoning, the compiler is within
> > its rights to transform either the original code or the code using
> > ACCESS_ONCE into:
> >
> > b = 999;
> > if (a)
> > b = 9;
> > else
> > b = 42;
> >
> > and again, other code would be confused. The simple fact is that
> > SMP-safe code is not likely to be produced by a compiler that assumes
> > everything is single-threaded.
>
> If you use ACCESS_ONCE(), the compiler is prohibited from inserting
> the "b = 999".

What prohibits it?

> If you don't use ACCESS_ONCE(), the compiler really
> is permitted to insert the "b = 999". So, why would the compiler do
> such a thing? One possible reason would be from optimizations using
> large registers to hold multiple values. A store from such a register
> could clobber unrelated variables, but as long as the compiler fixes
> up the clobbering after the fact, it is within its rights to do so.
>
> The sad fact is that the C standard really does permit the compiler
> to assume that it is generating sequential code.

Compiling the kernel requires quite a few extensions to the C standard.
Assumptions about generating sequential code may well be among them.

Alan Stern



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-06 18:21    [W:0.076 / U:1.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site