From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754225AbbGJKWc (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 10 Jul 2015 06:22:32 -0400
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:39439 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753380AbbGJKWZ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 10 Jul 2015 06:22:25 -0400
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:22:10 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, rth@twiddle.net,
        vgupta@synopsys.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, will.deacon@arm.com,
        hskinnemoen@gmail.com, realmz6@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
        rkuo@codeaurora.org, tony.luck@intel.com, geert@linux-m68k.org,
        james.hogan@imgtec.com, ralf@linux-mips.org, jejb@parisc-linux.org,
        benh@kernel.crashing.org, davem@davemloft.net, cmetcalf@ezchip.com,
        mingo@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 19/24] s390: Provide atomic_{or,xor,and}
Message-ID: <20150710102210.GF19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20150709172855.564686637@infradead.org>
 <20150709175309.831326362@infradead.org>
 <20150710071709.GA3905@osiris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150710071709.GA3905@osiris>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 09:17:09AM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:

> > @@ -50,6 +51,7 @@
> >  #define __ATOMIC_AND	"nr"
> >  #define __ATOMIC_ADD	"ar"
> >  #define __ATOMIC_BARRIER "\n"
> > +#define __ATOMIC_XOR	"xr"
> 
> Would you mind moving the two XOR define above the BARRIER?
> Just to keep it consistent with ATOMIC64 stuff within this patch ;)

Oh, duh, done.

> >  #define __ATOMIC_LOOP(ptr, op_val, op_string, __barrier)		\
> >  ({									\
> > @@ -118,14 +120,26 @@ static inline void atomic_add(int i, ato
> >  #define atomic_dec_return(_v)		atomic_sub_return(1, _v)
> >  #define atomic_dec_and_test(_v)		(atomic_sub_return(1, _v) == 0)
> > 
> > -static inline void atomic_clear_mask(unsigned int mask, atomic_t *v)
> > +#define ATOMIC_OP(op, OP)						\
> > +static inline void atomic_##op(int i, atomic_t *v)			\
> > +{									\
> > +	__ATOMIC_LOOP(v, i, __ATOMIC_##OP, __ATOMIC_NO_BARRIER);	\
> > +}
> > +
> > +ATOMIC_OP(and, AND)
> > +ATOMIC_OP(or, OR)
> > +ATOMIC_OP(xor, XOR)
> > +
> > +#undef ATOMIC_OP
> > +
> > +static inline __deprecated void atomic_clear_mask(unsigned int mask, atomic_t *v)
> >  {
> > -	__ATOMIC_LOOP(v, ~mask, __ATOMIC_AND, __ATOMIC_NO_BARRIER);
> > +	atomic_and(~mask, v);
> >  }
> > 
> > -static inline void atomic_set_mask(unsigned int mask, atomic_t *v)
> > +static inline __deprecated void atomic_set_mask(unsigned int mask, atomic_t *v)
> >  {
> > -	__ATOMIC_LOOP(v, mask, __ATOMIC_OR, __ATOMIC_NO_BARRIER);
> > +	atomic_or(mask, v);
> >  }
> 
> If you insist on the __deprecated (no problem with that), I'd like to apply
> your patch to the s390 tree so I can convert all users.
> I would like to avoid to see tons of warnings.

See the last patch in this series, it does that conversion. Although I
might need to double check I got them all, its been a while since I did
that patch.