On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 9:29 AM Andrea Parri
<andrea.pa...@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 08:45:47AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On 5/31/19 7:45 AM, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> > > In this case the code doesn't need them because an implicit
> > > barrier() (which is *stronger* than READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE) already
> > > exists in both places.
>
>
> > I have already explained that the READ_ONCE() was a leftover of the first
> > version
> > of the patch, that I refined later, adding correct (and slightly more
> > complex) RCU
> > barriers and rules.
>
> AFAICT, neither barrier() nor RCU synchronization can be used as
> a replacement for {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() here (and in tons of other
> different situations). IOW, you might want to try harder. ;-)
At least the writer side is using queue_rcu_work() which implies many
full memory barriers,
it is not equivalent to a compiler barrier() :/
David, Herbert, I really do not care, I want to move on fixing real
bugs, not arguing with memory barriers experts.
Lets add back the READ_ONCE() and be happy.
