>>> Julien Grall <julien.gr...@linaro.org> 12/17/14 1:55 PM >>>
>On 17/12/14 10:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 16.12.14 at 21:08, <julien.gr...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> +#define ACCESS_ONCE(x) (*(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x))
>>
>> Any reason not to simply use {read,write}_atomic() instead, which we
>> already have?
>
>To avoid modifying Linux drivers when it's not necessary and doesn't harm.
I realize that's the motivation, but I also view it as problematic to have two
different constructs doing the same thing. Defining the new one in terms of
the existing ones doesn't seem possible (or else I would suggest that in
order for the connection to be obvious). We'll see what other maintainers
think...
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
