On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 02:05:32PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
Attachment:
pgpWkmoV3O33r.pgp
Description: PGP signature
