On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 08:02:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 07:28:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > @@ -320,6 +323,9 @@ static inline long long atomic64_##op##_ > > > > ATOMIC64_OPS(add, adds, adc) > > ATOMIC64_OPS(sub, subs, sbc) > > +ATOMIC64_OP(and, and, and) > > +ATOMIC64_OP(or, or, or) > > Hmm, reading through them, this should be: > > ATOMIC64_OP(or, orr, orr) > > I suppose, not sure why the compiler didn't complain, maybe because > there aren't any users.. Yep, as it creates a static inline function, the code will only get produced if something uses it, and which point the assembler would have picked up on the error. In any case, with that modification, the patch then _looks_ correct to me for both atomic and atomic64 additions. Not tested myself. I guess as you're only looking for comments at the moment, there's little point in acking it just yet. -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net. -- 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
