[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdXxw23dUpSgQRZz0XO=4tx-ZEbpmjfx3ivHqL8Qx0vn9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:55:05 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...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@...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}()
Hi Peter,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 7:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 05:04:24PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
>>
>> > If not, do you want me to 'fix' this or just remove the comment?
>>
>> It's not broken, so nothing to fix.
>
> Its non obvious code, that's usually plenty reason to change it.
>
> Geert, you maintain this stuff, what say you? Is there still a good
> reason (like supporting ancient compilers that don't do "+d" for
> example) to keep the code as is?
I don't know when support for "+d" was introduced.
But given people regularly use old compilers, I'm not inclined to change it,
unless there's a very good reason.
BTW, what's the failure mode if an old compiler not supporting "+d"
encounters it?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists