On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 10:11:37AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 09:58:15AM -0700, tip-bot for Kees Cook wrote: > >> locking/refcount: Create unchecked atomic_t implementation > > > > This seems to do only half the job. Here's the rest. > > > > --- > > Subject: locking/refcount: Finish unchecked atomic_t implementation > > > > For some reason the unchecked atomic_t implementation stopped half-way > > through, complete it it. > > Hmm? The reason is that the implementation of the remaining functions > is unchanged between full, unchecked, and x86. But they're wasted code if !arch because the existing atomic functions are adequate (and I would argue better in case of atomic_add_unless). And arch implementations would certainly want to reimplement dec_not_one. Plus, you completely failed mention any of this.
