lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 3/5] arch: s/smp_mb__(before|after)_(atomic|clear)_(dec,inc,bit)/smp_mb__\1/g
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 07:12:04PM +0000, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:48:28PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Because atomic ops are implemented the same across an architecture,
> > the current incomplete set of extra barriers:
> >
> > smp_mb__before_atomic_inc()
> > smp_mb__after_atomic_inc()
> > smp_mb__before_atomic_dec()
> > smp_mb__after_atomic_dec()
> > smp_mb__before_clear_bit()
> > smp_mb__after_clear_bit()
> >
> > is both incomplete and superfluous.
> >
> > It is incomplete because there are far more atomic operations that do
> > not return values -- such as atomic_add(), set_bit() etc. And it is
> > superfluous because they're all the same anyway.
> >
> > Simplify things by reducing the triplicate set into a single set of
> > barriers that is valid for all void atomic ops:
> >
> > smp_mb__before_atomic()
> > smp_mb__after_atomic()
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>
> I very much like the API shrinkage. The RCU changes are good, and
> I believe that the rest is OK too, though my eyes were going a bit
> buggy towards the end...
>
> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

... and the arm[64] parts look fine to me.

Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Usual comment about upcoming conflicts :)

Will


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-07 11:21    [W:0.476 / U:0.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site