On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:52:12PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > It would be nice if these were default implementations of the unlock, then > architectures just implement atomic_sub_release how they like. Yes, I suppose that makes sense. Last time I proposed the primitive nobody yelled at me, so I suppose that means people agree :-) > One thing worth mentioning: I have a fairly invasive set of changes pending > for arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic.h, so if you do decide to go with this, > I'm more than happy to take the sub_release part via the arm64 tree. I guess > it depends on when this is likely to get merged. I suppose it depends on when I get enough courage to do: vim arch/*/include/asm/atomic*.h :-) There's a few other cleanups I want to do, like today I found atomic_{set,clear}_mask() instead of the more natural atomic_{or,and}() functions. I also think we can get rid of the {inc,dec} variants of smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() since these barriers should be the same for _all_ atomic ops that do not already imply full mb semantics, and they're certainly the same for all current inc/dec. If tomorrow is another slow day and I get through enough of the review backlog I might just give it a go. Anyway, I'll base them on your arm64 changes, I know where to find those. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html