[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <525751E2.3020207@asianux.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:18:26 +0800
From: Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
"linux390@...ibm.com" <linux390@...ibm.com>,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: include: asm: atomic.h: use 'unsigned int'
and 'atomic_t' instead of 'unsigned long' for atomic_clear_mask()
On 10/10/2013 10:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:03:52PM +0100, Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 10/10/2013 06:07 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 03:35:21AM +0100, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>> In current kernel wide source, for arm64, only s390 scsi drivers use
>>>> atomic_clear_mask(), now, s390 itself need use 'unsigned int' and
>>>> 'atomic_t', so need match s390's atomic_clear_mask().
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h | 13 +++++++------
>>>> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h
>>>> index 8363644..58808fc 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h
>>>> @@ -126,16 +126,17 @@ static inline int atomic_cmpxchg(atomic_t *ptr, int old, int new)
>>>> return oldval;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -static inline void atomic_clear_mask(unsigned long mask, unsigned long *addr)
>>>> +static inline void atomic_clear_mask(unsigned int mask, atomic_t *ptr)
>>>> {
>>>> - unsigned long tmp, tmp2;
>>>> + unsigned int tmp;
>>>
>>> Same comment here as for ARM; I think you want a signed int.
>>>
>>
>> OK, replied in patch 2/3 for ARM.
>>
>> BTW: do arm64 need atomic_clear_mask()?
>
> No. Neither ARM nor arm64 need this function.
>
OK, thank you for your confirmation.
Hmm... can we remove atomic_clear_mask() from ARM and arm64? (in my
opinion, if not need, better to remove it).
> Will
>
>
Thanks.
--
Chen Gang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists