On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 04:25:49PM +0800, Rui Wang wrote:
> This looks like a typo and that caused atomic64 test failed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rui Wang <wangrui@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: hev <r@xxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h
> index 95e1f7f3597f..a0b9e7c1e4fc 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h
> +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h
> @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ ATOMIC_OPS(atomic64, xor, s64, ^=, xor, lld, scd)
> * The function returns the old value of @v minus @i.
> */
> #define ATOMIC_SIP_OP(pfx, type, op, ll, sc) \
> -static __inline__ int arch_##pfx##_sub_if_positive(type i, pfx##_t * v) \
> +static __inline__ type arch_##pfx##_sub_if_positive(type i, pfx##_t * v) \
> { \
> type temp, result; \
> \
sub_if_postive looks unused to me. Could you send a patch removing it
instead ? riscv also has a sub_if_positive implementation, which looks
unused.
Thomas.
--
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
