On 10/11/2013 09:03 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am 11.10.2013 14:28, schrieb Will Deacon: >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 01:08:17PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Chen Gang <gang.chen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> In current kernel wide source code, except other architectures, only >>>> s390 scsi drivers use atomic_clear_mask(), and arm/arm64 need not >>>> support s390 drivers. >>>> >>>> So remove atomic_clear_mask() from "arm[64]/include/asm/atomic.h". >>> >>> Is it really worth removing such a primitive? >>> If someone needs it later he has to implement it from scratch and >>> introduces bugs... >> >> The version we have (on ARM64 anyway) already has bugs. Given the choice >> between fixing code that has no callers and simply removing it, I'd go for >> the latter. > > Yeah, if it's broken and has no real users, send it to hell. :) > OK, thanks. Hmm... at least, the original API definition is not well enough: "need use 'unsigned int' and 'atomic_t' instead of 'unsigned long' for the type of parameters". But can we say "under arm64, it must be a bug"? (although I agree it is very easy to let callers miss using it -- then may cause issue). In my opinion, it belongs to "API definition issue" not implementation bug: "if all callers are carefully enough, it will not make issues" (e.g. in "./kernel" sub-system, we can meet many such kinds of things). Thanks. > Thanks, > //richard > > > -- Chen Gang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
