On 10/12/2013 09:36 AM, Chen Gang wrote: > 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). > For "./kernel" sub-system, it really it is, if necessary, I can provide 3 samples. ;-) > > > 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
