[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wh6ip4AVqGx6kB9aHN07pR3M4htTTq1n=M7skPaudpM-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2022 10:53:42 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
aarcange@...hat.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
jroedel@...e.de, ubizjak@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] x86/mm/pae: Be consistent with pXXp_get_and_clear()
On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 4:48 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> +
> +#define pxx_xchg64(_pxx, _ptr, _val) ({ \
> + _pxx##val_t *_p = (_pxx##val_t *)_ptr; \
> + _pxx##val_t _o = *_p; \
> + do { } while (!try_cmpxchg64(_p, &_o, (_val))); \
> + native_make_##_pxx(_o); \
> +})
I think this could just be a "xchp64()", but if the pte/pmd code is
the only thing that actually wants this on 32-bit architectures, I'm
certainly ok with making it be specific to just this code, and calling
it "pxx_xchg()".
I wonder if there's some driver somewhere that wanted to use it, but
just made it be
depends on CONFIG_64BIT
instead, or made it use a cmpxchg64() loop because a plain xchg() didn't work.
I guess it really doesn't matter, with 32-bit being relegated to
legacy status anyway. No need to try to expand usage.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists