Messages in this thread | | | From | hev <> | Date | Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:00:47 +0800 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] locking/atomic: arch/mips: Fix atomic{_64,}_sub_if_positive |
| |
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 5:53 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de> wrote: > > 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@loongson.cn> > > Signed-off-by: hev <r@hev.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. Okay.
Regards, Rui
> > Thomas. > > -- > Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a > good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
| |