[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180605092637.GF12258@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:26:37 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Albert Ou <albert@...ive.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 05/16] atomics: prepare for atomic64_fetch_add_unless()
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:43:35PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> /**
> + * atomic64_add_unless - add unless the number is already a given value
> + * @v: pointer of type atomic_t
> + * @a: the amount to add to v...
> + * @u: ...unless v is equal to u.
> + *
> + * Atomically adds @a to @v, so long as @v was not already @u.
> + * Returns non-zero if @v was not @u, and zero otherwise.
I always get confused by that wording; would something like: "Returns
true if the addition was done" not be more clear?
> + */
> +#ifdef atomic64_fetch_add_unless
> +static inline int atomic64_add_unless(atomic64_t *v, long long a, long long u)
Do we want to make that a "bool' return?
> +{
> + return atomic64_fetch_add_unless(v, a, u) != u;
> +}
> +#endif
Powered by blists - more mailing lists