Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Nov 2010 11:28:21 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] atomic: add atomic_inc_not_zero_hint() |
| |
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:20:24 +0100 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le vendredi 05 novembre 2010 __ 11:08 -0700, Andrew Morton a __crit : > > On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:00:46 +0100 > > Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Le vendredi 05 novembre 2010 __ 10:20 -0700, Andrew Morton a __crit : > > > > > > > It totally makes sense to add include/linu/atomic.h for common things. > > > > Perhaps there's already code in arch/*/include/asm/atomic.h which > > > > should be hoisted up there. But that can't reliably be done until a > > > > million files have had their #includes switched :( > > > > > > > > > > Maybe including <linux/atomic.h> only from the end of various > > > > > > arch/*/include/asm/atomic.h ? > > > > heh, I guess that would work. It breaks the standard way of doing > > these things (I think?) so let's not go there unless we have a need? > > > > > In this case, I remove the include <asm/atomic.h> from linux/atomic.h > > > > Oh. Why? I thought it was better the previous, standard way: thou > > shalt henceforth include liunx/atomic.h, not asm/atomic.h. And the > > presence of linux/atomic.h will in fact trigger the checkpatch warning > > telling people to use that when they try to use asm/atomic.h. > > Hmm, if we want to move the common stuff from > arch/*/include/asm/atomic.h to this new file (include/linux/atomic.h), > then we would have to change hundred of > > #include <asm/atomic.h> > > to > > #include <linux/atomic.h> > > This seems a big task to me ? > > Or just make a whole tree replace ? >
But we haven't established that there _is_ duplicated code which needs that treatment.
Scanning arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h, perhaps ATOMIC_INIT() is a candidate. But I'm not sure that it _should_ be hoisted up - if every architecture happens to do it the same way then that's just a fluke.
| |