[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <mvmk2hpxq1a.fsf@hawking.suse.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:43:29 +0200
From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
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\@vger.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}()
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> 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?
No, there is nothing to fix here.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, schwab@...ux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
Powered by blists - more mailing lists