All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 00/12] Rewrite asm-generic/bitops/{atomic,lock}.h and use on arm64
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:21:47 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180319172147.GM14916@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK7LNAT+DVCJ8CbxKYX0yEUdsp-vYU1J+az+yfM9h3-DzoWGgQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Masahiro,

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:56:28PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> 2018-03-01 16:16 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>:
> > 2018-02-27 0:04 GMT+09:00 Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>:
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> This is version two of the RFC I previously posted here:
> >>
> >>   https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg634719.html
> >>
> >> Changes since v1 include:
> >>
> >>   * Fixed __clear_bit_unlock to work on archs with lock-based atomics
> >>   * Moved lock ops into bitops/lock.h
> >>   * Fixed build breakage on lesser-spotted architectures
> >>
> >> Trying to fix the circular #includes introduced by pulling atomic.h
> >> into btops/lock.h has been driving me insane. I've ended up moving some
> >> basic BIT definitions into bits.h, but this might all be better in
> >> const.h which is being proposed by Masahiro. Feedback is especially
> >> welcome on this part.
> >
> >
> > Info for reviewers:
> >
> > You can see my patches at the following:
> >
> > 1/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235457/
> > 2/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235461/
> > 3/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235463/
> > 4/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235469/
> > 5/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235471/
> >
> >
> > 5/5 has conflict with Will's 2/12.
> >
> > Fortunately, it is at the tail of the series.
> > It is easy to pick/drop/change
> > when we decide how to organize it.
> 
> 
> No comments so far about this part.
> 
> I think your approach is better
> since putting BIT* macros into a single header
> is more consistent.
> 
> So, I will ask Andrew to drop mine.

Thanks.

> However, I think <linux/bits.h> will make more sense
> than <asm-generic/bits.h>
> 
> These macros are really arch-agnostic.
> So, we would not expect to have <asm/bits.h>
> that could fall back to <asm-generic/bits.h>, right?

That's fair. I'll do a respin using linux/*.

Cheers,

Will

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/12] Rewrite asm-generic/bitops/{atomic,lock}.h and use on arm64
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:21:47 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180319172147.GM14916@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK7LNAT+DVCJ8CbxKYX0yEUdsp-vYU1J+az+yfM9h3-DzoWGgQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Masahiro,

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:56:28PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> 2018-03-01 16:16 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>:
> > 2018-02-27 0:04 GMT+09:00 Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>:
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> This is version two of the RFC I previously posted here:
> >>
> >>   https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg634719.html
> >>
> >> Changes since v1 include:
> >>
> >>   * Fixed __clear_bit_unlock to work on archs with lock-based atomics
> >>   * Moved lock ops into bitops/lock.h
> >>   * Fixed build breakage on lesser-spotted architectures
> >>
> >> Trying to fix the circular #includes introduced by pulling atomic.h
> >> into btops/lock.h has been driving me insane. I've ended up moving some
> >> basic BIT definitions into bits.h, but this might all be better in
> >> const.h which is being proposed by Masahiro. Feedback is especially
> >> welcome on this part.
> >
> >
> > Info for reviewers:
> >
> > You can see my patches at the following:
> >
> > 1/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235457/
> > 2/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235461/
> > 3/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235463/
> > 4/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235469/
> > 5/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235471/
> >
> >
> > 5/5 has conflict with Will's 2/12.
> >
> > Fortunately, it is at the tail of the series.
> > It is easy to pick/drop/change
> > when we decide how to organize it.
> 
> 
> No comments so far about this part.
> 
> I think your approach is better
> since putting BIT* macros into a single header
> is more consistent.
> 
> So, I will ask Andrew to drop mine.

Thanks.

> However, I think <linux/bits.h> will make more sense
> than <asm-generic/bits.h>
> 
> These macros are really arch-agnostic.
> So, we would not expect to have <asm/bits.h>
> that could fall back to <asm-generic/bits.h>, right?

That's fair. I'll do a respin using linux/*.

Cheers,

Will

  reply	other threads:[~2018-03-19 17:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-02-26 15:04 [RFC PATCH v2 00/12] Rewrite asm-generic/bitops/{atomic, lock}.h and use on arm64 Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/12] Rewrite asm-generic/bitops/{atomic,lock}.h " Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/12] h8300: Don't include linux/kernel.h in asm/atomic.h Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04   ` Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04 ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/12] m68k: Don't use asm-generic/bitops/lock.h Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04   ` Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04 ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/12] asm-generic: Move some macros from linux/bitops.h to a new bits.h file Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04   ` Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04 ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/12] openrisc: Don't pull in all of linux/bitops.h in asm/cmpxchg.h Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04   ` Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04 ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/12] sh: Don't pull in all of linux/bitops.h in asm/cmpxchg-xchg.h Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04   ` Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/12] arm64: fpsimd: include <linux/init.h> in fpsimd.h Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04   ` Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:37   ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-26 15:37     ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-26 15:04 ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/12] arm64: lse: Include compiler_types.h and export.h for out-of-line LL/SC Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04   ` Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:42   ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-26 15:42     ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-26 15:04 ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/12] arm64: cmpxchg: Include build_bug.h instead of bug.h for BUILD_BUG Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04   ` Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:48   ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-26 15:48     ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-27 17:33     ` Will Deacon
2018-02-27 17:33       ` Will Deacon
2018-02-27 17:34       ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-27 17:34         ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-26 15:04 ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/12] asm-generic/bitops/atomic.h: Rewrite using atomic_fetch_* Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04   ` Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/12] asm-generic/bitops/lock.h: " Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04   ` Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04 ` [RFC PATCH v2 11/12] arm64: Replace our atomic/lock bitop implementations with asm-generic Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:04   ` Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:05 ` [RFC PATCH v2 12/12] arm64: bitops: Include <asm-generic/bitops/ext2-atomic-setbit.h> Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:05   ` Will Deacon
2018-03-01  7:16 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/12] Rewrite asm-generic/bitops/{atomic,lock}.h and use on arm64 Masahiro Yamada
2018-03-01  7:16   ` Masahiro Yamada
2018-03-12  3:56   ` Masahiro Yamada
2018-03-12  3:56     ` Masahiro Yamada
2018-03-19 17:21     ` Will Deacon [this message]
2018-03-19 17:21       ` Will Deacon

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=20180319172147.GM14916@arm.com \
    --to=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.