On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 04:27:11PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > As in my other reply, I'd prefer that we wrapped the (arch-specific) >> > atomic implementations such that we can instrument them explicitly in a >> > core header. That means that the implementation and semantics of the >> > atomics don't change at all. >> > >> > Note that we could initially do this just for x86 and arm64), e.g. by >> > having those explicitly include an <asm-generic/atomic-instrumented.h> >> > at the end of their <asm/atomic.h>. >> >> How exactly do you want to do this incrementally? >> I don't feel ready to shuffle all archs, but doing x86 in one patch >> and then arm64 in another looks tractable. > > I guess we'd have three patches: one adding the header and any core > infrastructure, followed by separate patches migrating arm64 and x86 > over. But if we add e.g. atomic_read() which forwards to arch_atomic_read() to <linux/atomic.h>, it will break all archs that don't rename its atomic_read() to arch_atomic_read(). -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
