On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 01:45:20AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 11:06:44AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > And for v. But how do I do that without C++ templates?
> >
> > Also, does __builtin_constant_p() work reliably on a parameter?
> > Especially when the compile
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 11:06:44AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> And for v. But how do I do that without C++ templates?
>
> Also, does __builtin_constant_p() work reliably on a parameter?
> Especially when the compiler decides not to do the inlining?
Yeah, it's going to be a pain indeed, gues
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:59:50AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:57:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > -#define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v) smp_store_release(&p, RCU_INITIALIZER(v))
> > +#define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v) \
> > +({ \
> > + uintptr_t _r_a_p__v = (uin
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:57:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> -#define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v) smp_store_release(&p, RCU_INITIALIZER(v))
> +#define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v) \
> +({ \
> + uintptr_t _r_a_p__v = (uintptr_t)(v); \
> + \
> + if (__builtin_constant_p(v) && (_r_a_p__v)
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 07:10:23AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 12:53:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 10:01:20AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 06:22:01PM +0530, Muhammad Falak R Wani wrote:
> > > > It is saf
On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 12:53:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 10:01:20AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 06:22:01PM +0530, Muhammad Falak R Wani wrote:
> > > It is safe to use RCU_INIT_POINTER() to NULL, instead of
> > > rcu_assign_pointer()
On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 10:01:20AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 06:22:01PM +0530, Muhammad Falak R Wani wrote:
> > It is safe to use RCU_INIT_POINTER() to NULL, instead of
> > rcu_assign_pointer().
> > This results in slightly smaller/faster code.
>
> If this is indeed
On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 06:22:01PM +0530, Muhammad Falak R Wani wrote:
> It is safe to use RCU_INIT_POINTER() to NULL, instead of
> rcu_assign_pointer().
> This results in slightly smaller/faster code.
If this is indeed the case, rcu_assign_pointer should simply check
for NULL using __builtin_cons
It is safe to use RCU_INIT_POINTER() to NULL, instead of
rcu_assign_pointer().
This results in slightly smaller/faster code.
Signed-off-by: Muhammad Falak R Wani
---
drivers/target/target_core_tpg.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_tp
9 matches
Mail list logo