linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] locking/atomic: arch/mips: Fix atomic{_64,}_sub_if

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210729095342.GB8286@alpha.franken.de>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:53:42 +0200
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     Rui Wang <wangrui@...ngson.cn>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        hev <r@....cc>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] locking/atomic: arch/mips: Fix
 atomic{_64,}_sub_if_positive

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 04:25:49PM +0800, Rui Wang wrote:
> This looks like a typo and that caused atomic64 test failed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rui Wang <wangrui@...ngson.cn>
> Signed-off-by: hev <r@....cc>
> ---
>  arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h
> index 95e1f7f3597f..a0b9e7c1e4fc 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h
> +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h
> @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ ATOMIC_OPS(atomic64, xor, s64, ^=, xor, lld, scd)
>   * The function returns the old value of @v minus @i.
>   */
>  #define ATOMIC_SIP_OP(pfx, type, op, ll, sc)				\
> -static __inline__ int arch_##pfx##_sub_if_positive(type i, pfx##_t * v)	\
> +static __inline__ type arch_##pfx##_sub_if_positive(type i, pfx##_t * v)	\
>  {									\
>  	type temp, result;						\
>  									\

sub_if_postive looks unused to me. Could you send a patch removing it
instead ? riscv also has a sub_if_positive implementation, which looks
unused.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]