On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 09:33:48AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:30:34AM +0100, LABBE Corentin wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 09:57:00AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 07:35:46AM +0000, Corentin Labbe wrote: > > > > This patchset adds a new set of functions which are open-coded in lot of > > > > place. > > > > Basicly the pattern is always the same, "read, modify a bit, write" > > > > some driver and the powerpc arch already have thoses pattern them as functions. (like ahci_sunxi.c or dwmac-meson8b) > > > > > > The advantage of them being open-coded is that it's _obvious_ to the > > > reviewer that there is a read-modify-write going on which, in a multi- > > > threaded environment, may need some locking (so it should trigger a > > > review of the locking around that code.) > > > > > > With it hidden inside a helper which has no locking itself, it becomes > > > much easier to pass over in review, which means that races are much > > > more likely to go unspotted - and that is bad news. > > > > > > > Hello > > > > I understand your fear, but I think the benefit overhaul thoses. > > Furthermore, drivers which I have converted does not need such locking. > > > > If you want I can rename the header to linux/setbits-non-atomic.h for making obvious the lack of locking. > > It'd probably be better in the function name - it then doesn't get > "lost" that it's non-atomic when it's included via other headers. > I proposed that way for doing like writeq have do it with io-64-nonatomic-hi-lo.h
