From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932656AbeCLD5R (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Mar 2018 23:57:17 -0400 Received: from conssluserg-06.nifty.com ([210.131.2.91]:18249 "EHLO conssluserg-06.nifty.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932532AbeCLD5P (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Mar 2018 23:57:15 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 conssluserg-06.nifty.com w2C3v9Mu003590 X-Nifty-SrcIP: [209.85.213.44] X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtr9GVmpmncFd5ER62Qs8U8t6op3ilIQUrjNR81DpdJ7zalO0cH3gG6j0kaq8dzpRCodrN3ACLoTqh43j5+azw= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1519657500-15094-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> From: Masahiro Yamada Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 12:56:28 +0900 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/12] Rewrite asm-generic/bitops/{atomic,lock}.h and use on arm64 To: Will Deacon Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" , Ingo Molnar , linux-arm-kernel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Will, 2018-03-01 16:16 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada : > 2018-02-27 0:04 GMT+09:00 Will Deacon : >> Hi everyone, >> >> This is version two of the RFC I previously posted here: >> >> https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg634719.html >> >> Changes since v1 include: >> >> * Fixed __clear_bit_unlock to work on archs with lock-based atomics >> * Moved lock ops into bitops/lock.h >> * Fixed build breakage on lesser-spotted architectures >> >> Trying to fix the circular #includes introduced by pulling atomic.h >> into btops/lock.h has been driving me insane. I've ended up moving some >> basic BIT definitions into bits.h, but this might all be better in >> const.h which is being proposed by Masahiro. Feedback is especially >> welcome on this part. > > > Info for reviewers: > > You can see my patches at the following: > > 1/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235457/ > 2/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235461/ > 3/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235463/ > 4/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235469/ > 5/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235471/ > > > 5/5 has conflict with Will's 2/12. > > Fortunately, it is at the tail of the series. > It is easy to pick/drop/change > when we decide how to organize it. No comments so far about this part. I think your approach is better since putting BIT* macros into a single header is more consistent. So, I will ask Andrew to drop mine. However, I think will make more sense than These macros are really arch-agnostic. So, we would not expect to have that could fall back to , right? -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: yamada.masahiro@socionext.com (Masahiro Yamada) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 12:56:28 +0900 Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 00/12] Rewrite asm-generic/bitops/{atomic,lock}.h and use on arm64 In-Reply-To: References: <1519657500-15094-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Will, 2018-03-01 16:16 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada : > 2018-02-27 0:04 GMT+09:00 Will Deacon : >> Hi everyone, >> >> This is version two of the RFC I previously posted here: >> >> https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg634719.html >> >> Changes since v1 include: >> >> * Fixed __clear_bit_unlock to work on archs with lock-based atomics >> * Moved lock ops into bitops/lock.h >> * Fixed build breakage on lesser-spotted architectures >> >> Trying to fix the circular #includes introduced by pulling atomic.h >> into btops/lock.h has been driving me insane. I've ended up moving some >> basic BIT definitions into bits.h, but this might all be better in >> const.h which is being proposed by Masahiro. Feedback is especially >> welcome on this part. > > > Info for reviewers: > > You can see my patches at the following: > > 1/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235457/ > 2/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235461/ > 3/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235463/ > 4/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235469/ > 5/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235471/ > > > 5/5 has conflict with Will's 2/12. > > Fortunately, it is at the tail of the series. > It is easy to pick/drop/change > when we decide how to organize it. No comments so far about this part. I think your approach is better since putting BIT* macros into a single header is more consistent. So, I will ask Andrew to drop mine. However, I think will make more sense than These macros are really arch-agnostic. So, we would not expect to have that could fall back to , right? -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada