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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-19 17:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ 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 01/12] h8300: Don't include linux/kernel.h in asm/atomic.h 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 ` [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 ` [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 ` [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 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/12] arm64: fpsimd: include <linux/init.h> in fpsimd.h Will Deacon
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 15:42 ` 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 15:48 ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-27 17:33 ` Will Deacon
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 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/12] asm-generic/bitops/lock.h: " 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 15:05 ` [RFC PATCH v2 12/12] arm64: bitops: Include <asm-generic/bitops/ext2-atomic-setbit.h> 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
2018-03-12 3:56 ` Masahiro Yamada
2018-03-19 17:21 ` Will Deacon [this message]
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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).