On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 10:33 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
<tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 08:31:11PM +0800, hev wrote:
> > Hi, Thomas,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 5:53 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
> > <tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > I found atomic{_64,}_dec_if_postive is based on sub_if_postive, and
> > used in many places:
> >
> > kernel/kmod.c: if (atomic_dec_if_positive(&kmod_concurrent_max) < 0) {
> > kernel/kmod.c:
> > atomic_dec_if_positive(&kmod_concurrent_max) >= 0,
> > kernel/module.c: ret = atomic_dec_if_positive(&module->refcnt);
> > ...
> > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c:
> > atomic64_dec_if_positive(&esw->user_count);
> > drivers/net/netdevsim/fib.c: atomic64_dec_if_positive(&entry->num);
> > drivers/net/netdevsim/fib.c: atomic64_dec_if_positive(&entry->num);
> >
> > Are you sure to remove it?
>
> in that case, let's keep it. There is a fallback for atomic_dec_if_positive,
> that's why I didn't notice where it is used.
yep, do you think this patch is okay?
Regards,
Rui
