[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+bawF=f_VNoYzfqpwT7FV7+iYA0QW+4NXZCdSh=vDgcMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:21:16 +0200
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] asm-generic: add atomic-instrumented.h
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 06:15:41PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> The new header allows to wrap per-arch atomic operations
>> and add common functionality to all of them.
>
> Why a new header instead of putting this in linux/atomic.h?
Only a subset of archs include this header. If we pre-include it for
all arches without changing their atomic.h, we will break build. We of
course play some tricks with preprocessor.
It's also large enough to put into a separate header IMO.
Also a reasonable question: why put it into linux/atomic.h instead of
a new header? :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists