On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:57:20AM +0100, Jules Maselbas wrote:
> Hi Mark,
...
> > > +static inline int arch_atomic_add_return(int i, atomic_t *v)
> > > +{
> > > + int new, old, ret;
> > > +
> > > + do {
> > > + old = v->counter;
> >
> > Likewise, arch_atomic64_read(v) here.
> ack, this will bt arch_atomic_read(v) here since this is not atomic64_t
> here.
I took a second look at this and I think we are not doing the right
thing, we do not need to defined arch_atomic_add_return at all since
we are including the generic atomic right after, which will define
the macro arch_atomic_add_return as generic_atomic_add_return
>
> Thanks
> -- Jules
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
