[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210618084847.GA93984@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 09:48:47 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, will@...nel.org,
boqun.feng@...il.com, peterz@...radead.org, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
arnd@...db.de, bcain@...eaurora.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
chris@...kel.net, dalias@...c.org, davem@...emloft.net,
deanbo422@...il.com, deller@....de, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
gerg@...ux-m68k.org, green.hu@...il.com, guoren@...nel.org,
ink@...assic.park.msu.ru, James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
jcmvbkbc@...il.com, jonas@...thpole.se, ley.foon.tan@...el.com,
linux@...linux.org.uk, mattst88@...il.com, monstr@...str.eu,
mpe@...erman.id.au, nickhu@...estech.com, palmerdabbelt@...gle.com,
paulus@...ba.org, paul.walmsley@...ive.com, rth@...ddle.net,
shorne@...il.com, stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi,
tsbogend@...ha.franken.de, vgupta@...opsys.com,
ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/33] locking/atomic: convert all architectures to
ARCH_ATOMIC
On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 10:56:16PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 5/25/21 7:01 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > This series (based on v5.13-rc2) converts all architectures to
> > ARCH_ATOMIC. This will allow the use of instrumented atomics on all
> > architectures (e.g. for KASAN and similar), and simplifies the core
> > atomic code (which should allow for easier rework of the fallbacks and
> > other bits in future).
[...]
> Hi Mark,
> Sorry for the late reply.
Hi Randy,
Likewise, apologies in the delay in getting to this!
> I was just trying to update a patch
> to arch/sh/include/asm/cmpxchg.h, in its xchg() macro:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210602231443.4670-2-rdunlap@infradead.org/
>
> The patch simply converts xchg() to a GCC statement expression to
> eliminate a build warning.
>
> Arnd has done this for m68k and I have done it for sparc in the past.
>
> Is there any (good) reason that all versions of arch_xchg() are not
> statement expressions? In this patch series, they seem to be quite
> mixed (as they were before this patch series). I count 11 arches
> that use a statement expression and 4 that do not (including arch/sh/).
Largely I tried to make the minimal change from what was there before,
and I didn't have any specific reason to either use or avoid statement
expressions.
This series has been queued in the tip tree's locking/core branch for a
while now, but we could spin a patch atop. Do you want to spin a patch
to convert the remaining 4 architectures in one go?
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists