On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 03:12:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 09:16:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 11:42:35AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Paul, why not do something like the below and do away with all this
> > > nonsense?
> >
> > We used to do that, but the compilers became uncooperative, despite
> > Stephen Hemminger's best efforts.
>
> Happen to have a link handy to that thread so I can educate myself?
After a bit of software archeology, here you go...
Commit d322f45ceed52 (rcu: Make rcu_assign_pointer() unconditionally
insert a memory barrier) made this change. According to the commit
log:
Recent changes to gcc give warning messages on rcu_assign_pointers()'s
checks that allow it to determine when it is OK to omit the memory
barrier. Stephen Hemminger tried a number of gcc tricks to silence
this warning, but #pragmas and CPP macros do not work together in the
way that would be required to make this work.
This was applied in 2011, and searching LKML during that time gives
the following: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/29/305
And in this LKML post, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
Gcc now generates warnings from rcu_assign_pointer when passed the
address of something for example:
rcu_assign_pointer(dev_queue->qdisc, &noop_qdisc);
This warning is harmless and should be surpressed but there maybe
other cases where we want that Gcc warning.
I tried various combinations of in rcu_assign_pointer macro
#pragma GCC diagnostic push
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wlogical-op"
...
#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
but macro's and pragma's don't nest with the correct scope for
this.
Maybe some one with more Gcc foo and time to waste could take
a crack at it.
Adding Stephen on CC in case he remembers more.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
