From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PATCHv5] atomic: add *_dec_not_zero Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:26:55 +1100 Message-ID: <1323073615.660.11.camel@pasglop> References: <1323013369-29691-1-git-send-email-sven@narfation.org> <20111204221850.GC14542@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1323038515.11728.26.camel@pasglop> <3836467.I5Tqg6MFf9@sven-laptop.home.narfation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <3836467.I5Tqg6MFf9@sven-laptop.home.narfation.org> Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Sven Eckelmann Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Heiko Carstens , Randy Dunlap , Paul Mackerras , Helge Deller , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Richard Weinberger , Hirokazu Takata , x86@kernel.org, "James E.J. Bottomley" , Ingo Molnar , Matt Turner , Fenghua Yu , Arnd On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 08:57 +0100, Sven Eckelmann wrote: > On Monday 05 December 2011 09:41:55 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 22:18 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > .../... > > > > > And really, I believe it would be a good cleanup if all the standard > > > definitions for atomic64 ops (like atomic64_add_negative) were also > > > defined in include/linux/atomic.h rather than individually in every > > > atomic*.h header throughout the kernel source, except where an arch > > > wants to explicitly override it. Yet again, virtually all architectures > > > define these in exactly the same way. > > > > > > We have more than enough code in arch/ for any architecture to worry > > > about, we don't need schemes to add more when there's simple and > > > practical solutions to avoiding doing so if the right design were > > > chosen (preferably from the outset.) > > > > > > So, I'm not going to offer my ack for a change which I don't believe > > > is the correct approach. > > > > I agree with Russell, his approach is a lot easier to maintain long run, > > we should even consider converting existing definitions. > > I would rather go with "the existing definitions have to converted" and this > means "not by this patch". Right. I didn't suggest -you- had to do it as a pre-req to your patch. > At the moment, the atomic64 stuff exist only as > separate generic or arch specific implementation. It is fine that Russell King > noticed that people like Arun Sharma did a lot of work to made it true for > atomic_t, but atomic64_t is a little bit different right now (at least as I > understand it). Cheers, Ben.