From: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 12:57:18 +0200
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2022 17:27:16 +0100
On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 01:49:06PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
In preparation for altering the non-atomic bitops with a macro, wrap
them in a transparent definition. This requires prepending one more
'_' to their names in order to be able to do that seamlessly.
sparc32 already has the triple-underscored functions, so I had to
rename them ('___' -> 'sp32_').
Could we use an 'arch_' prefix here, like we do for the atomics, or is that
already overloaded?
Yeah it is, for example, x86 has 'arch_' functions defined in its
architecture headers[0] and at the same time uses generic
instrumented '__' helpers[1], so on x86 both underscored and 'arch_'
are defined and they are not the same.
Oh well, forgot to attach the links. Can be found at the bottom of
this mail.
Same with those sparc32 triple-underscored, sparc32 at the same time
uses generic non-instrumented, so it has underscored, 'arch_' and
triple-underscored.
In general, bitops are overloaded with tons of prefixes already :)
I'm not really glad that I introduced one more level, but not that
we have many options here.
Thanks,
Mark.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
[...]
--
2.36.1
Thanks,
Olek
[0] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.19-rc1/source/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h#L136
[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.19-rc1/source/include/asm-generic/bitops/instrumented-non-atomic.h#L93
Thanks,
Olek
