From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: richard@nod.at (Richard Weinberger)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:03:12 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] arm/arm64: remove atomic_clear_mask() in
 "include/asm/atomic.h"
In-Reply-To: <20131011122846.GK14732@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <5256121A.9030504@asianux.com> <52561269.60900@asianux.com>
 <20131010100733.GH3817@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <52568998.2080108@asianux.com>
 <20131010142305.GG6199@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <525751E2.3020207@asianux.com>
 <20131011104419.GE14732@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <5257E033.3090607@asianux.com> <5257E539.9080902@asianux.com>
 <CAFLxGvwsx2YfNHiGtjWsANfVW74PT3KneLA-T6SpY4NEp_OSUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131011122846.GK14732@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
Message-ID: <5257F710.5090706@nod.at>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Am 11.10.2013 14:28, schrieb Will Deacon:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 01:08:17PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com> wrote:
>>> In current kernel wide source code, except other architectures, only
>>> s390 scsi drivers use atomic_clear_mask(), and arm/arm64 need not
>>> support s390 drivers.
>>>
>>> So remove atomic_clear_mask() from "arm[64]/include/asm/atomic.h".
>>
>> Is it really worth removing such a primitive?
>> If someone needs it later he has to implement it from scratch and
>> introduces bugs...
> 
> The version we have (on ARM64 anyway) already has bugs. Given the choice
> between fixing code that has no callers and simply removing it, I'd go for
> the latter.

Yeah, if it's broken and has no real users, send it to hell. :)

Thanks,
//richard