LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH 1/2] atomic_ops.rst: Fix wrong example code
@ 2018-04-19  8:42 SeongJae Park
  2018-04-19  8:42 ` [PATCH 2/2] atomic_ops.rst: Use `warning` rst directive SeongJae Park
  2018-04-19 13:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] atomic_ops.rst: Fix wrong example code Paul E. McKenney
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: SeongJae Park @ 2018-04-19  8:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: paulmck, corbet; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-doc, SeongJae Park

Example code snippets for necessary of READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() has
an unnecessary line of code and wrong condition.  This commit fixes
them.

Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst b/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
index fce929144ccd..4ea4af71e68a 100644
--- a/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
+++ b/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
@@ -111,7 +111,6 @@ If the compiler can prove that do_something() does not store to the
 variable a, then the compiler is within its rights transforming this to
 the following::
 
-	tmp = a;
 	if (a > 0)
 		for (;;)
 			do_something();
@@ -119,7 +118,7 @@ the following::
 If you don't want the compiler to do this (and you probably don't), then
 you should use something like the following::
 
-	while (READ_ONCE(a) < 0)
+	while (READ_ONCE(a) > 0)
 		do_something();
 
 Alternatively, you could place a barrier() call in the loop.
-- 
2.13.0

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* [PATCH 2/2] atomic_ops.rst: Use `warning` rst directive
  2018-04-19  8:42 [PATCH 1/2] atomic_ops.rst: Fix wrong example code SeongJae Park
@ 2018-04-19  8:42 ` SeongJae Park
  2018-04-19 13:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] atomic_ops.rst: Fix wrong example code Paul E. McKenney
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: SeongJae Park @ 2018-04-19  8:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: paulmck, corbet; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-doc, SeongJae Park

One warning message in 'atomic_ops.rst' is not using 'warning' rst
directive while others does.  This commit modifies the message to use
'warning' rst directive.

Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst | 10 ++++++----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst b/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
index 4ea4af71e68a..2e7165f86f55 100644
--- a/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
+++ b/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
@@ -466,10 +466,12 @@ Like the above, except that these routines return a boolean which
 indicates whether the changed bit was set _BEFORE_ the atomic bit
 operation.
 
-WARNING! It is incredibly important that the value be a boolean,
-ie. "0" or "1".  Do not try to be fancy and save a few instructions by
-declaring the above to return "long" and just returning something like
-"old_val & mask" because that will not work.
+
+.. warning::
+        It is incredibly important that the value be a boolean, ie. "0" or "1".
+        Do not try to be fancy and save a few instructions by declaring the
+        above to return "long" and just returning something like "old_val &
+        mask" because that will not work.
 
 For one thing, this return value gets truncated to int in many code
 paths using these interfaces, so on 64-bit if the bit is set in the
-- 
2.13.0

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 1/2] atomic_ops.rst: Fix wrong example code
  2018-04-19  8:42 [PATCH 1/2] atomic_ops.rst: Fix wrong example code SeongJae Park
  2018-04-19  8:42 ` [PATCH 2/2] atomic_ops.rst: Use `warning` rst directive SeongJae Park
@ 2018-04-19 13:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2018-04-19 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: SeongJae Park; +Cc: corbet, linux-kernel, linux-doc

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 05:42:44PM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote:
> Example code snippets for necessary of READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() has
> an unnecessary line of code and wrong condition.  This commit fixes
> them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>

Good catch!!!  I queued and pushed both patches for further review,
thank you!

						Thanx, Paul

> ---
>  Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst b/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
> index fce929144ccd..4ea4af71e68a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst
> @@ -111,7 +111,6 @@ If the compiler can prove that do_something() does not store to the
>  variable a, then the compiler is within its rights transforming this to
>  the following::
> 
> -	tmp = a;
>  	if (a > 0)
>  		for (;;)
>  			do_something();
> @@ -119,7 +118,7 @@ the following::
>  If you don't want the compiler to do this (and you probably don't), then
>  you should use something like the following::
> 
> -	while (READ_ONCE(a) < 0)
> +	while (READ_ONCE(a) > 0)
>  		do_something();
> 
>  Alternatively, you could place a barrier() call in the loop.
> -- 
> 2.13.0
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2018-04-19 13:54 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-04-19  8:42 [PATCH 1/2] atomic_ops.rst: Fix wrong example code SeongJae Park
2018-04-19  8:42 ` [PATCH 2/2] atomic_ops.rst: Use `warning` rst directive SeongJae Park
2018-04-19 13:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] atomic_ops.rst: Fix wrong example code Paul E. McKenney

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).