Re: [RFC] Introduce atomic_long_t

Andi Kleen
2005-12-09T22:50:28Z

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 11:33:28PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 11:20:45PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > I'd say the sequence is:
> > > 1. create an linux/atomic.h the #include's asm/atomic.h
> > > 2. convert all asm/atomic.h to use linux/atomic.h
> > > 3. move common code to linux/atomic.h
> >
> > I don't think there is much common code actually. atomic_t
> > details vary widly between architectures. Just defining
> > a few macros to others is really not significant. I think
> > Christoph's original patch was just fine.
>
> All of Christoph's original patch contains common code.
>
> The amount of duplication his patch would create alone would IMHO be
> worth creating an linux/atomic.h.

There wasn't actually much code in there. And defining
asm-generic/atomic-long-on-32bit.h and asm-generic/atomic-long-on-64bit.h
like you essentially proposed would just obfuscate the code, not make it
easier to maintain.

Aiming for common code is ok, but only when it actually improves
maintainability.

-Andi