From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergma nn <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
x86@kernel.org, "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@tilera.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
linux-m32r@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
linux390@de.ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Hirokazu Takata <takata@linux-m32r.org>
Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCHv5] atomic: add *_dec_not_zero
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:41:55 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1323038515.11728.26.camel@pasglop> (raw)
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.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Sven Eckelmann <sven@narfation.org>,
linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Hirokazu Takata <takata@linux-m32r.org>,
x86@kernel.org, "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>, Arnd Bergma nn <arnd@arnd>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCHv5] atomic: add *_dec_not_zero
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:41:55 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1323038515.11728.26.camel@pasglop> (raw)
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.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Sven Eckelmann <sven@narfation.org>,
linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Hirokazu Takata <takata@linux-m32r.org>,
x86@kernel.org, "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>, Arnd Bergma nn <arnd@arndb.de>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@tilera.com>,
linux-m32r@ml.linux-m32r.org,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca>,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
linux390@de.ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCHv5] atomic: add *_dec_not_zero
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:41:55 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1323038515.11728.26.camel@pasglop> (raw)
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.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Sven Eckelmann <sven@narfation.org>,
linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Hirokazu Takata <takata@linux-m32r.org>,
x86@kernel.org, "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
Arnd Bergma nn <arnd@arnd
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCHv5] atomic: add *_dec_not_zero
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:41:55 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1323038515.11728.26.camel@pasglop> (raw)
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.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Sven Eckelmann <sven@narfation.org>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergma nn <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
x86@kernel.org, "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@tilera.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
linux-m32r@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
linux390@de.ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Hirokazu Takata <takata@linux-m32r.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCHv5] atomic: add *_dec_not_zero
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:41:55 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1323038515.11728.26.camel@pasglop> (raw)
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.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: benh@kernel.crashing.org (Benjamin Herrenschmidt)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCHv5] atomic: add *_dec_not_zero
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:41:55 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1323038515.11728.26.camel@pasglop> (raw)
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-04 22:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-04 15:42 [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCHv5] atomic: add *_dec_not_zero Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 15:42 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 15:42 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 15:42 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 15:42 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 21:33 ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] " Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-12-04 21:33 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-12-04 21:33 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-12-04 21:33 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-12-04 21:33 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-12-04 21:49 ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] " Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 21:49 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 21:49 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 21:49 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 21:49 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 21:49 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 21:49 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 22:18 ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] " Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-12-04 22:18 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-12-04 22:18 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-12-04 22:18 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-12-04 22:18 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-12-04 22:18 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-12-04 22:18 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-12-04 22:41 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2011-12-04 22:41 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-12-04 22:41 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-12-04 22:41 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-12-04 22:41 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-12-04 22:41 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-12-05 0:14 ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] " H. Peter Anvin
2011-12-05 0:14 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-12-05 0:14 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-12-05 0:14 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-12-05 0:14 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-12-05 0:14 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-12-05 7:57 ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] " Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-05 7:57 ` Re: " Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-05 7:57 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-05 7:57 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-05 7:57 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-05 7:57 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-05 8:26 ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] " Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-12-05 8:26 ` Re: " Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-12-05 8:26 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-12-05 8:26 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-12-05 8:26 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-12-05 8:26 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-12-04 22:42 ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] " Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 22:42 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 22:42 ` Re: " Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 22:42 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 22:42 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 22:42 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-04 22:42 ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-12-05 11:44 ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] " David Laight
2011-12-05 11:44 ` David Laight
2011-12-05 11:44 ` David Laight
2011-12-05 11:44 ` David Laight
2011-12-05 11:44 ` David Laight
2011-12-05 11:44 ` David Laight
2011-12-05 11:44 ` David Laight
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1323038515.11728.26.camel@pasglop \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org \
--cc=cmetcalf@tilera.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=deller@gmx.de \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru \
--cc=jdike@addtoit.com \
--cc=jejb@parisc-linux.org \
--cc=kyle@mcmartin.ca \
--cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org \
--cc=linux-m32r@ml.linux-m32r.org \
--cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
--cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux390@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mattst88@gmail.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=takata@linux-m32r.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.