[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150519121349.GE2067@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 13:13:49 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Sarbojit Ganguly <ganguly.s@...sung.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Waiman.Long@...com" <Waiman.Long@...com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"vikram.m@...sung.com" <vikram.m@...sung.com>,
"raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com"
<raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
SHARAN ALLUR <sharan.allur@...sung.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] arm: Add for atomic half word exchange
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:20:11AM +0000, Sarbojit Ganguly wrote:
> Yes, I will try to do that. OTOH, I saw that there was a discussion on
> removal of bad_xchg() altogether. Perhaps that approach be better than
> adding this half word exchange?
The only possibility for removal of __bad_xchg() is to remove it's
_definition_ only, not its callsite, so that we get a _link_ time
error for use cases we don't support.
Removing its callsite leaves us open to code malfunction: xchg()
effectively becomes a no-op for sizes which are not supported, and
that's a _very_ bad thing to happen.
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
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