locking/atomics: COCCINELLE/treewide: Convert trivial ACCESS_ONCE() patterns to READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE()

Please do not apply this to mainline directly, instead please re-run the
coccinelle script shown below and apply its output.

For several reasons, it is desirable to use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in
preference to ACCESS_ONCE(), and new code is expected to use one of the
former. So far, there's been no reason to change most existing uses of
ACCESS_ONCE(), as these aren't harmful, and changing them results in
churn.

However, for some features, the read/write distinction is critical to
correct operation. To distinguish these cases, separate read/write
accessors must be used. This patch migrates (most) remaining
ACCESS_ONCE() instances to {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(), using the following
coccinelle script:

----
// Convert trivial ACCESS_ONCE() uses to equivalent READ_ONCE() and
// WRITE_ONCE()

// $ make coccicheck COCCI=/home/mark/once.cocci SPFLAGS="--include-headers" MODE=patch

virtual patch

@ depends on patch @
expression E1, E2;
@@

- ACCESS_ONCE(E1) = E2
+ WRITE_ONCE(E1, E2)

@ depends on patch @
expression E;
@@

- ACCESS_ONCE(E)
+ READ_ONCE(E)
----

Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

drivers/misc/mic/scif/scif_rb.c

@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ void scif_rb_commit(struct scif_rb *rb)
 	 * the read barrier in scif_rb_count(..)
 	 */
 	wmb();
-	ACCESS_ONCE(*rb->write_ptr) = rb->current_write_offset;
+	WRITE_ONCE(*rb->write_ptr, rb->current_write_offset);
 #ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_MIC_CARD
 	/*
 	 * X100 Si bug: For the case where a Core is performing an EXT_WR
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ void scif_rb_commit(struct scif_rb *rb)
 	 * This way, if ordering is violated for the Interrupt Message, it will
 	 * fall just behind the first Posted associated with the first EXT_WR.
 	 */
-	ACCESS_ONCE(*rb->write_ptr) = rb->current_write_offset;
+	WRITE_ONCE(*rb->write_ptr, rb->current_write_offset);
 #endif
 }
 
@@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ void scif_rb_update_read_ptr(struct scif_rb *rb)
 	 * scif_rb_space(..)
 	 */
 	mb();
-	ACCESS_ONCE(*rb->read_ptr) = new_offset;
+	WRITE_ONCE(*rb->read_ptr, new_offset);
 #ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_MIC_CARD
 	/*
 	 * X100 Si Bug: For the case where a Core is performing an EXT_WR
@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ void scif_rb_update_read_ptr(struct scif_rb *rb)
 	 * This way, if ordering is violated for the Interrupt Message, it will
 	 * fall just behind the first Posted associated with the first EXT_WR.
 	 */
-	ACCESS_ONCE(*rb->read_ptr) = new_offset;
+	WRITE_ONCE(*rb->read_ptr, new_offset);
 #endif
 }
 

drivers/misc/mic/scif/scif_rma_list.c

@@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ retry:
 		 * Need to restart list traversal if there has been
 		 * an asynchronous list entry deletion.
 		 */
-		if (ACCESS_ONCE(ep->rma_info.async_list_del))
+		if (READ_ONCE(ep->rma_info.async_list_del))
 			goto retry;
 	}
 	mutex_unlock(&ep->rma_info.rma_lock);