From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/8] powerpc/64s: put io_sync bit into r14
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 13:08:54 -0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a7ya6bqx.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171220145206.12234-5-npiggin@gmail.com>
Hello Nicholas,
Just a small comment about syntax. I'm afraid I can't comment much about
the substance of the patch.
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> writes:
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> index b9ebc3085fb7..182bb9304c79 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -40,16 +40,9 @@
> #endif
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_PPC64) && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
> -#define CLEAR_IO_SYNC (get_paca()->io_sync = 0)
> -#define SYNC_IO do { \
> - if (unlikely(get_paca()->io_sync)) { \
> - mb(); \
> - get_paca()->io_sync = 0; \
> - } \
> - } while (0)
> +#define CLEAR_IO_SYNC do { r14_clear_bits(R14_BIT_IO_SYNC); } while(0)
Is there a reason for the do { } while(0) idiom here? If
r14_clear_bits() is an inline function, isn't it a single statement
already?
--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-22 15:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-20 14:51 [RFC PATCH 0/8] use r14 for a per-cpu kernel register Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-20 14:51 ` [RFC PATCH 1/8] powerpc/64s: stop using r14 register Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-20 14:52 ` [RFC PATCH 2/8] powerpc/64s: poison r14 register while in kernel Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-20 14:52 ` [RFC PATCH 3/8] powerpc/64s: put the per-cpu data_offset in r14 Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-20 17:53 ` Gabriel Paubert
2017-12-22 13:50 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-20 14:52 ` [RFC PATCH 4/8] powerpc/64s: put io_sync bit into r14 Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-22 15:08 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann [this message]
2017-12-20 14:52 ` [RFC PATCH 5/8] powerpc/64s: put work_pending " Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-20 14:52 ` [RFC PATCH 6/8] powerpc/64s: put irq_soft_mask bits " Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-20 14:52 ` [RFC PATCH 7/8] powerpc/64s: put irq_soft_mask and irq_happened " Nicholas Piggin
2017-12-20 14:52 ` [RFC PATCH 8/8] powerpc/64s: inline local_irq_enable/restore Nicholas Piggin
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=87a7ya6bqx.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
/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.