- To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Re: [PATCHv5] atomic: add *_dec_not_zero
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:41:55 +1100
- Cc: Sven Eckelmann <sven@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-m32r-ja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>, Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx>, sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-hexagon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, user-mode-linux-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx>, Hirokazu Takata <takata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Matt Turner <mattst88@xxxxxxxxx>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx>, Arnd Bergma nn <arnd@xxxxxxxx>, Jeff Dike <jdike@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-m32r@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Richard Henderson <rth@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-parisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, b.a.t.m.a.n@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kyle McMartin <kyle@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux390@xxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <20111204221850.GC14542@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 22:18 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
.../...
> And really, I believe it would be a good cleanup if all the standard
> definitions for atomic64 ops (like atomic64_add_negative) were also
> defined in include/linux/atomic.h rather than individually in every
> atomic*.h header throughout the kernel source, except where an arch
> wants to explicitly override it. Yet again, virtually all architectures
> define these in exactly the same way.
>
> We have more than enough code in arch/ for any architecture to worry
> about, we don't need schemes to add more when there's simple and
> practical solutions to avoiding doing so if the right design were
> chosen (preferably from the outset.)
>
> So, I'm not going to offer my ack for a change which I don't believe
> is the correct approach.
I agree with Russell, his approach is a lot easier to maintain long run,
we should even consider converting existing definitions.
Cheers,
Ben.
[Linux MIPS Home]
[LKML Archive]
[Linux ARM]
[Linux]
[Git]
[Photo]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux Hams]