On 7/10/2015 6:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:10:33AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- a/include/linux/atomic.h
+++ b/include/linux/atomic.h
@@ -28,6 +28,23 @@ static inline int atomic_add_unless(atom
#define atomic_inc_not_zero(v) atomic_add_unless((v), 1, 0)
#endif
+#ifndef atomic_nand
+static inline void atomic_nand(int i, atomic_t *v)
+{
+ atomic_and(~i, v);
That sounds like a misnomer...
Your NAND is "A & ~B", while my[*] NAND is "~(A & B)"?
[*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAND_logic
Right you are.
What about atomic_clear()? (Is atomic_bic() too ARM-centric?)
atomic_and_not() ?
I've seen this as ANDN (as opposed to NAND). That's the name I used in
the tilepro atomics as the thing that implements the bitmask clear operation.
SPARC also has an "andn" instruction with this semantics.
--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com
--
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
