On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:08:27PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > #ifdef CONFIG_RMW_INSNS
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Am I reading these CAS loops right in that %2 is the old value and the first
> > + * iteration uses an uninitialized value?
> > + *
> > + * Would it not make sense to add: tmp = atomic_read(v); to avoid this?
> > + */
> > +
> > #define ATOMIC_OP_RETURN(op, c_op, asm_op) \
> > static inline int atomic_##op##_return(int i, atomic_t *v) \
> > { \
>
> Do we want the above comment in the code?
I figured it would not hurt; is this indeed the case, do we want to fix
it? I can do a follow up patch clarifying the situation.
--
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
