| Message ID | 52561269.60900@asianux.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 03:35:21AM +0100, Chen Gang wrote: > In current kernel wide source, for arm64, only s390 scsi drivers use > atomic_clear_mask(), now, s390 itself need use 'unsigned int' and > 'atomic_t', so need match s390's atomic_clear_mask(). > > > Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com> > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h | 13 +++++++------ > 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h > index 8363644..58808fc 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h > @@ -126,16 +126,17 @@ static inline int atomic_cmpxchg(atomic_t *ptr, int old, int new) > return oldval; > } > > -static inline void atomic_clear_mask(unsigned long mask, unsigned long *addr) > +static inline void atomic_clear_mask(unsigned int mask, atomic_t *ptr) > { > - unsigned long tmp, tmp2; > + unsigned int tmp; Same comment here as for ARM; I think you want a signed int. Will
On 10/10/2013 06:07 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 03:35:21AM +0100, Chen Gang wrote: >> In current kernel wide source, for arm64, only s390 scsi drivers use >> atomic_clear_mask(), now, s390 itself need use 'unsigned int' and >> 'atomic_t', so need match s390's atomic_clear_mask(). >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com> >> --- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h | 13 +++++++------ >> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h >> index 8363644..58808fc 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h >> @@ -126,16 +126,17 @@ static inline int atomic_cmpxchg(atomic_t *ptr, int old, int new) >> return oldval; >> } >> >> -static inline void atomic_clear_mask(unsigned long mask, unsigned long *addr) >> +static inline void atomic_clear_mask(unsigned int mask, atomic_t *ptr) >> { >> - unsigned long tmp, tmp2; >> + unsigned int tmp; > > Same comment here as for ARM; I think you want a signed int. > OK, replied in patch 2/3 for ARM. BTW: do arm64 need atomic_clear_mask()? > Will > > Thanks.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:03:52PM +0100, Chen Gang wrote: > On 10/10/2013 06:07 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 03:35:21AM +0100, Chen Gang wrote: > >> In current kernel wide source, for arm64, only s390 scsi drivers use > >> atomic_clear_mask(), now, s390 itself need use 'unsigned int' and > >> 'atomic_t', so need match s390's atomic_clear_mask(). > >> > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com> > >> --- > >> arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h | 13 +++++++------ > >> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h > >> index 8363644..58808fc 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h > >> @@ -126,16 +126,17 @@ static inline int atomic_cmpxchg(atomic_t *ptr, int old, int new) > >> return oldval; > >> } > >> > >> -static inline void atomic_clear_mask(unsigned long mask, unsigned long *addr) > >> +static inline void atomic_clear_mask(unsigned int mask, atomic_t *ptr) > >> { > >> - unsigned long tmp, tmp2; > >> + unsigned int tmp; > > > > Same comment here as for ARM; I think you want a signed int. > > > > OK, replied in patch 2/3 for ARM. > > BTW: do arm64 need atomic_clear_mask()? No. Neither ARM nor arm64 need this function. Will
On 10/10/2013 10:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:03:52PM +0100, Chen Gang wrote: >> On 10/10/2013 06:07 PM, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 03:35:21AM +0100, Chen Gang wrote: >>>> In current kernel wide source, for arm64, only s390 scsi drivers use >>>> atomic_clear_mask(), now, s390 itself need use 'unsigned int' and >>>> 'atomic_t', so need match s390's atomic_clear_mask(). >>>> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h | 13 +++++++------ >>>> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h >>>> index 8363644..58808fc 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h >>>> @@ -126,16 +126,17 @@ static inline int atomic_cmpxchg(atomic_t *ptr, int old, int new) >>>> return oldval; >>>> } >>>> >>>> -static inline void atomic_clear_mask(unsigned long mask, unsigned long *addr) >>>> +static inline void atomic_clear_mask(unsigned int mask, atomic_t *ptr) >>>> { >>>> - unsigned long tmp, tmp2; >>>> + unsigned int tmp; >>> >>> Same comment here as for ARM; I think you want a signed int. >>> >> >> OK, replied in patch 2/3 for ARM. >> >> BTW: do arm64 need atomic_clear_mask()? > > No. Neither ARM nor arm64 need this function. > OK, thank you for your confirmation. Hmm... can we remove atomic_clear_mask() from ARM and arm64? (in my opinion, if not need, better to remove it). > Will > > Thanks.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 02:18:26AM +0100, Chen Gang wrote: > On 10/10/2013 10:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:03:52PM +0100, Chen Gang wrote: > >> BTW: do arm64 need atomic_clear_mask()? > > > > No. Neither ARM nor arm64 need this function. > > OK, thank you for your confirmation. > > Hmm... can we remove atomic_clear_mask() from ARM and arm64? (in my > opinion, if not need, better to remove it). Yes! I mentioned this a few times already... Will
On 10/11/2013 06:44 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 02:18:26AM +0100, Chen Gang wrote: >> On 10/10/2013 10:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:03:52PM +0100, Chen Gang wrote: >>>> BTW: do arm64 need atomic_clear_mask()? >>> >>> No. Neither ARM nor arm64 need this function. >> >> OK, thank you for your confirmation. >> >> Hmm... can we remove atomic_clear_mask() from ARM and arm64? (in my >> opinion, if not need, better to remove it). > > Yes! > OK, thanks. > I mentioned this a few times already... > Hmm... firstly, you mentioned "except architectures, this is only used under s390" (so I reply we need follow s390), and then you mentioned "they are useless for arm/arm64" (so I ask whether it can be removed). Excuse me, as a 'programmer' (at least, I am a 'programmer'), when programming (assume our discussing belongs to programming), I have to consider precisely (especially for confirmation words). ;-) I will send one patch for removing it from arm and arm64. Thanks. > Will > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > Thanks.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h index 8363644..58808fc 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h @@ -126,16 +126,17 @@ static inline int atomic_cmpxchg(atomic_t *ptr, int old, int new) return oldval; } -static inline void atomic_clear_mask(unsigned long mask, unsigned long *addr) +static inline void atomic_clear_mask(unsigned int mask, atomic_t *ptr) { - unsigned long tmp, tmp2; + unsigned int tmp; + unsigned long tmp2; asm volatile("// atomic_clear_mask\n" -"1: ldxr %0, %2\n" -" bic %0, %0, %3\n" -" stxr %w1, %0, %2\n" +"1: ldxr %w0, %2\n" +" bic %w0, %w0, %w3\n" +" stxr %w1, %w0, %2\n" " cbnz %w1, 1b" - : "=&r" (tmp), "=&r" (tmp2), "+Q" (*addr) + : "=&r" (tmp), "=&r" (tmp2), "+Q" (ptr->counter) : "Ir" (mask) : "cc"); }
In current kernel wide source, for arm64, only s390 scsi drivers use atomic_clear_mask(), now, s390 itself need use 'unsigned int' and 'atomic_t', so need match s390's atomic_clear_mask(). Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h | 13 +++++++------ 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)