From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id KjNJO3/EpWTcDBcAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 05 Jul 2023 15:29:03 -0400 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=lists.lttng.org header.i=@lists.lttng.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=OTFc1+ye; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id D5C411E0BD; Wed, 5 Jul 2023 15:29:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists.lttng.org (lists.lttng.org [167.114.26.123]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C20141E0AC for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2023 15:29:01 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=lists.lttng.org; s=default; t=1688585341; bh=uVJaXQ1in/VK7VCY8Bia2j4v0AH5IAewyuXF01TrWck=; h=Date:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=OTFc1+yePPBdYztwIDD6a7WM4hlGDCg1SZBe29C3KZyJdJAZxh/VDhEkI56QqCL62 cqnEFOSGyy1LM5BuFna9JnCARrx8kNRwK7CFke11kMsswwXJjkTHHshff2iXQpmrT2 +ncUTyfPJEE8xW+WDtwlCLkI+HjX8QHKtg3Tf7qRqU5KQJrZSItGWBUGaTSxb10nx8 oFUEA1HxHEouEGlPnljY0FIeq/aDg4TE9Ws6yEEcxfL4lqqwiGHULRrXqNyeSXmk9/ 3qDwb7VbVrKN+i9li1XM9qk9mP4xM7AQIpPL+5LtAHLPYqO+SL9bBawyDNfZlho/OE TXqfxtxmY3MKA== Received: from lists-lttng01.efficios.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Qx8q1128Qz23q7; Wed, 5 Jul 2023 15:29:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by lists.lttng.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Qx8q02lFDz23q6 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2023 15:29:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DAEC615E6; Wed, 5 Jul 2023 19:28:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E296C433C9; Wed, 5 Jul 2023 19:28:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C5764CE27E7; Wed, 5 Jul 2023 12:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2023 12:28:58 -0700 To: Olivier Dion Message-ID: References: <20230515201718.9809-1-odion@efficios.com> <20230607185359.8125-5-odion@efficios.com> <81bdddb0-0a8e-4ce7-a40d-789bba0a74e2@paulmck-laptop> <87o7krd9fa.fsf@laura> <116221bf-33e0-4517-bee6-0dbb9cb69f26@paulmck-laptop> <871qhmchae.fsf@laura> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871qhmchae.fsf@laura> Subject: Re: [lttng-dev] [PATCH v2 04/12] urcu/system: Use atomic builtins if configured X-BeenThere: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: LTTng development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: "Paul E. McKenney via lttng-dev" Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org Cc: Tony Finch , lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: lttng-dev-bounces@lists.lttng.org Sender: "lttng-dev" On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 03:03:21PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote: > On Wed, 05 Jul 2023, "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 10:43:21AM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote: > >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023, "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > >> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 02:53:51PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote: > >> > > >> > Same question here on loss of volatile semantics. > >> > >> This apply to all review on volatile semantics. I added a > >> cmm_cast_volatile() macro/template for C/C++ for adding the volatile > >> qualifier to pointers passed to every atomic builtin calls. > > > > Sounds very good, thank you! > > Maybe a case of synchronicity here, but I just stumble upon this > > where you seem to express the same concerns :-) Just for completeness, my response to Hans's concern about volatile is addressed by an empty memory-clobber asm, similar to barrier() in the Linux kernel. But yes, this has seen significant discussion over the years. ;-) Thanx, Paul _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev