Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] implement per-cpu&per-domain state machinecall_srcu()

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:12:29AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 11:49 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 
> > I too have used (long)(a - b) for a long time, but I saw with my own eyes
> > the glee in the compiler-writers' eyes when they discussed signed overflow
> > being undefined in the C standard.  I believe that the reasons for signed
> > overflow being undefined are long obsolete, but better safe than sorry. 
> 
> Thing is, if they break that the whole kernel comes falling down, I
> really wouldn't worry about RCU at that point. But to each their
> pet-paranoia I guess ;-)

But just because I am paranoid doesn't mean that no one is after me!  ;-)

I agree that the compiler guys would need to provide a chicken switch
due to the huge amount of code that relies on (long)(a - b) handling
overflow reasonably.  But avoiding signed integer overflow is pretty
straightforward.  For example, I use the following in RCU:

	#define UINT_CMP_GE(a, b)	(UINT_MAX / 2 >= (a) - (b))
	#define UINT_CMP_LT(a, b)	(UINT_MAX / 2 < (a) - (b))
	#define ULONG_CMP_GE(a, b)	(ULONG_MAX / 2 >= (a) - (b))
	#define ULONG_CMP_LT(a, b)	(ULONG_MAX / 2 < (a) - (b))

But yes, part of the reason for my doing this was to make conversations
with the usual standards-committee suspects go more smoothly.

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/