[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55A816A3.1000502@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:40:03 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] ARM: atomics: define our SMP atomics in terms
of _relaxed operations
On 07/16/2015 11:32 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> By defining our SMP atomics in terms of relaxed operations, we gain
> a small reduction in code size and have acquire/release/fence variants
> generated automatically by the core code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon<will.deacon@....com>
> ---
> arch/arm/include/asm/atomic.h | 37 ++++++++++++++-------------------
> arch/arm/include/asm/cmpxchg.h | 47 +++++++-----------------------------------
> 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
>
>
>
> -#define xchg(ptr, x) ({ \
> +#define xchg_relaxed(ptr, x) ({ \
> (__typeof__(*(ptr)))__xchg((unsigned long)(x), (ptr), \
> sizeof(*(ptr))); \
> })
> @@ -117,6 +115,8 @@ static inline unsigned long __xchg(unsigned long x, volatile void *ptr, int size
> #error "SMP is not supported on this platform"
> #endif
>
> +#define xchg xchg_relaxed
Is that a typo? I think xchg() needs to be a full memory barrier.
Cheers,
Longman
--
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