From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 2DC816070B Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ellerman.id.au Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932309AbeFFI5k (ORCPT + 25 others); Wed, 6 Jun 2018 04:57:40 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.11.71.1]:55797 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932217AbeFFI5i (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2018 04:57:38 -0400 Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ellerman.id.au From: Michael Ellerman To: Mark Rutland Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Boqun Feng , Will Deacon , Arnd Bergmann , Richard Henderson , Ivan Kokshaysky , Matt Turner , Vineet Gupta , Russell King , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 05/16] atomics: prepare for atomic64_fetch_add_unless() In-Reply-To: <20180605110808.5ms6kbsayj2dbo7z@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20180529154346.3168-1-mark.rutland@arm.com> <20180529154346.3168-6-mark.rutland@arm.com> <20180605092637.GF12258@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180605095357.64zgw3uq3py2pjs4@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> <87bmcpo65w.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <20180605110808.5ms6kbsayj2dbo7z@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 18:57:34 +1000 Message-ID: <87tvqgmgw1.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mark Rutland writes: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 08:54:03PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Mark Rutland writes: >> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:26:37AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:43:35PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: >> >> > /** >> >> > + * atomic64_add_unless - add unless the number is already a given value >> >> > + * @v: pointer of type atomic_t >> >> > + * @a: the amount to add to v... >> >> > + * @u: ...unless v is equal to u. >> >> > + * >> >> > + * Atomically adds @a to @v, so long as @v was not already @u. >> >> > + * Returns non-zero if @v was not @u, and zero otherwise. >> >> >> >> I always get confused by that wording; would something like: "Returns >> >> true if the addition was done" not be more clear? >> > >> > Sounds clearer to me; I just stole the wording from the existing >> > atomic_add_unless(). >> > >> > I guess you'll want similar for the conditional inc/dec ops, e.g. >> > >> > /** >> > * atomic_inc_not_zero - increment unless the number is zero >> > * @v: pointer of type atomic_t >> > * >> > * Atomically increments @v by 1, so long as @v is non-zero. >> > * Returns non-zero if @v was non-zero, and zero otherwise. >> > */ >> >> If we're bike-shedding .. :) >> >> I think "so long as" is overly wordy and not helpful. It'd be clearer >> just as: >> >> * Atomically increments @v by 1, if @v is non-zero. > > I agree; done. Thanks. cheers