[PATCH v2] ARM: include: asm: use 'long long' instead of 'u64' within atomic.h

[gang.chen@asianux.com (Chen Gang)]

On 09/27/2013 07:06 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:03:43PM +0100, Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 09/26/2013 06:04 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 03:00:30AM +0100, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>> On 09/26/2013 12:07 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 03:25:19AM +0100, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>>>> atomic* value is signed value, and atomic* functions need also process
>>>>>> signed value (parameter value, and return value), so 32-bit arm need
>>>>>> use 'long long' instead of 'u64'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After replacement, it will also fix a bug for atomic64_add_negative():
>>>>>> "u64 is never less than 0".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The modifications are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   in vim, use "1,% s/\<u64\>/long long/g" command.
>>>>>>   remove '__aligned(8)' which is useless for 64-bit.
>>>>>>   be sure of 80 column limitation after replacement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks better to me, thanks. While you're here, we could also replace the use
>>>>> of `unsigned long' with `int' for the 32-bit atomics, then the whole header
>>>>> is consistent with the generic types.
>>>>>
>>>>> Will
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmm... at least, it seems we can let "use 'int' for 32-bit atomics" in
>>>> another patch.
>>>
>>> Sure, it can be a follow-up to this one.
>>>
>>
>> OK, if it is really a useful patch too, I will follow-up.
> 
> It's a cosmetic change to bring the signedness of our 32-bit atomics in-line
> with your proposal for 64-bit atomics.
> 
>> 'unsigned long' can be used as a register related variable, it is always
>> 32-bit under 32-bit machine, and always 64-bit under 64-bit machine.
> 
> Not necessarily (c.f. ILP32).
> 
>> So can use it for both arm and arm64, for arm, it can not cause issue,
>> and for arm64, it is also OK (if changed to 'int' under arm64, may cause
>> real issue).
> 
> arm and arm64 have different instructions sets. There's no way the inline
> assembly used to implement the atomic operations can be made portable
> between them.
> 


Hmm... if you like, I will send a follow-up patch for it, the reason is:

It is belong to internal implementation, not belong to API, so if it is
harmless, better to follow related maintainers' 'hobby' or 'tastes', it
will let the related code more clearer.  :-)


I will wait 1-2 days to let another reviewers check, if no reply, I will
send 2 patches for it. (if you already applied the "u64 -> long long"
patch, please let me know, and I will send one patch enough).


> Will
> 
> 

Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang