Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:54:22 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 RFC 1/3] documentation: Add needed ACCESS_ONCE() calls to memory-barriers.txt |
| |
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:17:23PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 02:32:30PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > We could, but at the moment I would prefer the decrease in readability > > > > to the copy-and-paste bugs that omit needed ACCESS_ONCE() calls. > > > > > > > > Is there some way to get both ACCESS_ONCE() and readability? An > > > > abbreviation such as AO()? More easily distinguished variable names? > > > > Something else? > > > > > > Use a form that looks less like C and thus defeats copy/paste? > > > > My concern with that approach is that there is likely to be a large > > number of people who are likely to be willing and able to transcribe > > from any reasonable non-C form to ACCESS_ONCE()-free C code. :-/ > > > > But maybe you have something specific in mind? > > No, that was pretty much it. My issues is though that the subject matter > is difficult enough without actively obfuscating the examples. > > Furthermore, people will find ways to get it wrong anyhow, if all they > do is copy/paste without thought, then getting it wrong is pretty much > guaranteed in this case. Memory ordering isn't something you can do > without thinking.
One could argue that parsing the ACCESS_ONCE() calls will help them realize that they actually need to think. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
| |