Re: [PATCH/RFC 2/2] s390 virtualization interface.

Christoph Hellwig
2007-05-02T08:25:33Z

On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 11:12:11PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Not sure about that point. If you need to do atomic operations on the
> first 32 bits, you shouldn't need to invent your own abstractions for
> those, and it's highly unlikely that the implementation of atomic_t changes.

I disagree. Using an atomic_t in a hardware structure is against all
the abstractions we've built. It's much better to have separate macros
to atomically modify a word in this hardware strcuture, even if they end
up exactly the same as the atomic_ macros - at least this way we clearly
document their intent.