Re: [PATCH 1/2] atomic: Allow atomic_inc_not_zero to be overridden

Re: [PATCH 1/2] atomic: Allow atomic_inc_not_zero to be overridden

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:09:53 +1100
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org> wrote:

> 
> We want to implement a ppc64 specific version of atomic_inc_not_zero
> so wrap it in an ifdef to allow it to be overridden.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
> ---
> 
> Index: linux-build/include/linux/atomic.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-build.orig/include/linux/atomic.h	2012-02-11 14:59:23.284714257 +1100
> +++ linux-build/include/linux/atomic.h	2012-02-11 15:01:14.894764555 +1100
> @@ -24,7 +24,9 @@ static inline int atomic_add_unless(atom
>   * Atomically increments @v by 1, so long as @v is non-zero.
>   * Returns non-zero if @v was non-zero, and zero otherwise.
>   */
> +#ifndef atomic_inc_not_zero
>  #define atomic_inc_not_zero(v)		atomic_add_unless((v), 1, 0)
> +#endif

Please merge this via the ppc tree?


And let's ask the hexagon maintainers to take a look at the definition
in arch/hexagon/include/asm/atomic.h.  I assume that it can be removed,
but that might cause problems with files which include asm/atomic.h
directly.  I have found two such files in non-arch code and have queued
fixes.  There are no such files in arch/hexagon code, so I think it's
safe to zap the hexagon definition of atomic_inc_not_zero().


> +static __inline__ int atomic_inc_not_zero(atomic_t *v)

Curious: is there a technical reason why ppc uses "__inline__" rather
than "inline"?

Re: [PATCH 1/2] atomic: Allow atomic_inc_not_zero to be overridden

[Richard Kuo]

On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 03:02:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Please merge this via the ppc tree?
> 
> 
> And let's ask the hexagon maintainers to take a look at the definition
> in arch/hexagon/include/asm/atomic.h.  I assume that it can be removed,
> but that might cause problems with files which include asm/atomic.h
> directly.  I have found two such files in non-arch code and have queued
> fixes.  There are no such files in arch/hexagon code, so I think it's
> safe to zap the hexagon definition of atomic_inc_not_zero().

Just tested it; it's safe to zap the Hexagon definition of
atomic_inc_not_zero()...  I'm fine with this going in through some
other tree (still getting mine set up).


Thanks,
Richard Kuo




-- 

Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.