Messages in this thread | | | From | Alexander Lobakin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/6] bitops: wrap non-atomic bitops with a transparent macro | Date | Tue, 7 Jun 2022 12:57:18 +0200 |
| |
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2022 17:27:16 +0100
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 01:49:06PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote: > > In preparation for altering the non-atomic bitops with a macro, wrap > > them in a transparent definition. This requires prepending one more > > '_' to their names in order to be able to do that seamlessly. > > sparc32 already has the triple-underscored functions, so I had to > > rename them ('___' -> 'sp32_'). > > Could we use an 'arch_' prefix here, like we do for the atomics, or is that > already overloaded?
Yeah it is, for example, x86 has 'arch_' functions defined in its architecture headers[0] and at the same time uses generic instrumented '__' helpers[1], so on x86 both underscored and 'arch_' are defined and they are not the same. Same with those sparc32 triple-underscored, sparc32 at the same time uses generic non-instrumented, so it has underscored, 'arch_' and triple-underscored.
In general, bitops are overloaded with tons of prefixes already :) I'm not really glad that I introduced one more level, but not that we have many options here.
> > Thanks, > Mark. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com> > > ---
[...]
> > -- > > 2.36.1
Thanks, Olek
| |