From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Docs: this_cpu_ops: remove redundant add forms
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:18:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54244E68.90109@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1411566583-22220-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com>
On 09/24/14 06:49, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I spotted the below while trying to figure out how to use this_cpu ops,
> and it left me confused for a short while.
>
> I guess that this is a refactoring fallout rather than there being a
> special this_cpu_add variant?
>
> Mark.
>
> ---->8----
> Commit ac490f4dca94 (Documentation: this_cpu_ops.txt: Update description
> of this_cpu_ops) added lists of {__,}this_cpu operations, but these have
> duplicate, parameter-less entries for {__,}this_cpu_add which don't
> correspond to any implementation. No other operations have such
> duplicate entries.
>
> Given both are also listed with their full complement of arguments, the
> empty forms are redundant and can be removed. This patch performs said
> removal.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> ---
> Documentation/this_cpu_ops.txt | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
Applied, thanks.
> diff --git a/Documentation/this_cpu_ops.txt b/Documentation/this_cpu_ops.txt
> index 0ec9957..2cbf719 100644
> --- a/Documentation/this_cpu_ops.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/this_cpu_ops.txt
> @@ -41,7 +41,6 @@ The following this_cpu() operations with implied preemption protection
> are defined. These operations can be used without worrying about
> preemption and interrupts.
>
> - this_cpu_add()
> this_cpu_read(pcp)
> this_cpu_write(pcp, val)
> this_cpu_add(pcp, val)
> @@ -225,7 +224,6 @@ still occur while an operation is in progress and if the interrupt too
> modifies the variable, then RMW actions can not be guaranteed to be
> safe.
>
> - __this_cpu_add()
> __this_cpu_read(pcp)
> __this_cpu_write(pcp, val)
> __this_cpu_add(pcp, val)
>
--
~Randy
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-25 17:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-24 13:49 [PATCH] Docs: this_cpu_ops: remove redundant add forms Mark Rutland
2014-09-24 14:40 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-09-25 17:18 ` Randy Dunlap [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54244E68.90109@infradead.org \
--to=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=bobby.prani@gmail.com \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox