[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160616101309.GD30921@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:13:09 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
boqun.feng@...il.com, waiman.long@....com,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <egtvedt@...fundet.no>,
Miao Steven <realmz6@...il.com>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, cmetcalf@...lanox.com,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, dbueso@...e.de,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 14/33] locking,m68k: Implement
atomic_fetch_{add,sub,and,or,xor}()
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:08:27PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > #ifdef CONFIG_RMW_INSNS
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Am I reading these CAS loops right in that %2 is the old value and the first
> > + * iteration uses an uninitialized value?
> > + *
> > + * Would it not make sense to add: tmp = atomic_read(v); to avoid this?
> > + */
> > +
> > #define ATOMIC_OP_RETURN(op, c_op, asm_op) \
> > static inline int atomic_##op##_return(int i, atomic_t *v) \
> > { \
>
> Do we want the above comment in the code?
I figured it would not hurt; is this indeed the case, do we want to fix
it? I can do a follow up patch clarifying the situation.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists