Documentation/atomic_t.txt: Clarify pure non-rmw usage
authorPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Fri, 24 May 2019 11:52:31 +0000 (13:52 +0200)
committerIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:32:57 +0000 (12:32 +0200)
Clarify that pure non-RMW usage of atomic_t is pointless, there is
nothing 'magical' about atomic_set() / atomic_read().

This is something that seems to confuse people, because I happen upon it
semi-regularly.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190524115231.GN2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Documentation/atomic_t.txt

index dca3fb0554db4928fa186e0826448d37e543a550..89eae7f6b3601612e858688282be6a55770e7b3f 100644 (file)
@@ -81,9 +81,11 @@ Non-RMW ops:
 
 The non-RMW ops are (typically) regular LOADs and STOREs and are canonically
 implemented using READ_ONCE(), WRITE_ONCE(), smp_load_acquire() and
-smp_store_release() respectively.
+smp_store_release() respectively. Therefore, if you find yourself only using
+the Non-RMW operations of atomic_t, you do not in fact need atomic_t at all
+and are doing it wrong.
 
-The one detail to this is that atomic_set{}() should be observable to the RMW
+A subtle detail of atomic_set{}() is that it should be observable to the RMW
 ops. That is:
 
   C atomic-set