[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200219062627.104736-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:26:23 +0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC v2 0/4] Documentation/locking/atomic: Add litmus tests for atomic APIs
A recent discussion raises up the requirement for having test cases for
atomic APIs:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200213085849.GL14897@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/
, and since we already have a way to generate a test module from a
litmus test with klitmus[1]. It makes sense that we add more litmus
tests for atomic APIs. And based on the previous discussion, I create a
new directory Documentation/atomic-tests and put these litmus tests
here.
This patchset starts the work by adding the litmus tests which are
already used in atomic_t.txt, and also improve the atomic_t.txt to make
it consistent with the litmus tests.
Previous version:
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20200214040132.91934-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com/
Changes since v1:
* Move the tests into Documentation/atomic-tests directory as a
result of the discussion with Alan and Paul.
* Word changing on litmus test names and other sentences in
documents based on Alan's suggestion.
* Add local variable declarations in
Atomic-RMW+mb__after_atomic-is-stronger-than-acquire to make
klitmus work as per Andrea's suggestion.
Currently, I haven't heard anything from Luc on whether the
atomic_add_unless() works or not for the LKMM, but based on my test and
Andrea's previous test, I think it actually works. I will add the
corresponding changes to the LIMITATIONS part of LKMM document if I got
a comfirm from Luc. And my PR:
https://github.com/herd/herdtools7/pull/28
is still not merged. So this version is simply an RFC and comments and
suggesions are welcome!
Regards,
Boqun
[1]: http://diy.inria.fr/doc/litmus.html#klitmus
Boqun Feng (4):
Documentation/locking/atomic: Fix atomic-set litmus test
Documentation/locking/atomic: Introduce atomic-tests directory
Documentation/locking/atomic: Add a litmus test for atomic_set()
Documentation/locking/atomic: Add a litmus test smp_mb__after_atomic()
...ter_atomic-is-stronger-than-acquire.litmus | 32 +++++++++++++++++++
...c-RMW-ops-are-atomic-WRT-atomic_set.litmus | 24 ++++++++++++++
Documentation/atomic-tests/README | 16 ++++++++++
Documentation/atomic_t.txt | 24 +++++++-------
MAINTAINERS | 1 +
5 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 Documentation/atomic-tests/Atomic-RMW+mb__after_atomic-is-stronger-than-acquire.litmus
create mode 100644 Documentation/atomic-tests/Atomic-RMW-ops-are-atomic-WRT-atomic_set.litmus
create mode 100644 Documentation/atomic-tests/README
--
2.25.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists