From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758005Ab3JKNDZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:03:25 -0400 Received: from b.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.144]:1661 "EHLO radon.swed.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754531Ab3JKNDY (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:03:24 -0400 Message-ID: <5257F710.5090706@nod.at> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:03:12 +0200 From: Richard Weinberger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Will Deacon CC: Richard Weinberger , Chen Gang , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Russell King - ARM Linux , Catalin Marinas , "linux390@de.ibm.com" , "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm/arm64: remove atomic_clear_mask() in "include/asm/atomic.h" 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> <20131011122846.GK14732@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20131011122846.GK14732@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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 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