On 28.05.2024 10:37, Oleksii K. wrote: > On Tue, 2024-05-28 at 08:20 +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 24.05.2024 13:08, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>> +/** >>> + * generic_test_bit - Determine whether a bit is set >>> + * @nr: bit number to test >>> + * @addr: Address to start counting from >>> + * >>> + * This operation is non-atomic and can be reordered. >>> + * If two examples of this operation race, one can appear to >>> succeed >>> + * but actually fail. You must protect multiple accesses with a >>> lock. >>> + */ >> >> You got carried away updating comments - there's no raciness for >> simple test_bit(). As is also expressed by its name not having those >> double underscores that the others have. > Then it is true for every function in this header. Based on the naming > the conclusion can be done if it is atomic/npn-atomic and can/can't be > reordered. So the comments aren't seem very useful.
I disagree - test_bit() is different, in not being a read-modify-write operation. Jan
