On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 02:05:32PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > +#define ATOMIC_OPS(op) ATOMIC_OP(op) ATOMIC_OP_RETURN(op)
> 
> Can ATOMIC_OP() just be an alias for ATOMIC_OP_RETURN() where that is
> appropriate?  I suspect several arches (MN10300 included) are going to return
> the value *anyway*.

I was going to introduce a few new atomic ops that will not have
_return() equivalents. So relying on whatever code is generated by
ATOMIC_OP_RETURN() is going to be painful.