> -#define __arch_cmpxchg(lr_sfx, sc_sfx, prepend, append, r, p, co, o, n) \
> +#define __arch_cmpxchg(lr_sfx, sc_cas_sfx, prepend, append, r, p, co, o, n) \
> ({ \
> + __label__ zacas, end; \
> register unsigned int __rc; \
> \
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZACAS)) { \
> + asm goto(ALTERNATIVE("nop", "j %[zacas]", 0, \
> + RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZACAS, 1) \
> + : : : : zacas); \
> + } \
> + \
> __asm__ __volatile__ ( \
> prepend \
> "0: lr" lr_sfx " %0, %2\n" \
> " bne %0, %z3, 1f\n" \
> - " sc" sc_sfx " %1, %z4, %2\n" \
> + " sc" sc_cas_sfx " %1, %z4, %2\n" \
> " bnez %1, 0b\n" \
> append \
> "1:\n" \
> : "=&r" (r), "=&r" (__rc), "+A" (*(p)) \
> : "rJ" (co o), "rJ" (n) \
> : "memory"); \
> + goto end; \
> + \
> +zacas: \
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZACAS)) { \
> + __asm__ __volatile__ ( \
> + prepend \
> + " amocas" sc_cas_sfx " %0, %z2, %1\n" \
> + append \
> + : "+&r" (r), "+A" (*(p)) \
> + : "rJ" (n) \
> + : "memory"); \
> + } \
Is this second IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZACAS) check actually needed?
(just wondering - no real objection)
> +end:; \
Why the semicolon?
> })
>
> #define _arch_cmpxchg(ptr, old, new, sc_sfx, prepend, append) \
> @@ -156,7 +177,7 @@
> __typeof__(ptr) __ptr = (ptr); \
> __typeof__(*(__ptr)) __old = (old); \
> __typeof__(*(__ptr)) __new = (new); \
> - __typeof__(*(__ptr)) __ret; \
> + __typeof__(*(__ptr)) __ret = (old); \
This is because the compiler doesn't realize __ret is actually
initialized, right? IAC, seems a bit unexpected to initialize
with (old) (which indicates SUCCESS of the CMPXCHG operation);
how about using (new) for the initialization of __ret instead?
would (new) still work for you?
Andrea
