On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 08:57 +0100, Sven Eckelmann wrote: > On Monday 05 December 2011 09:41:55 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 22:18 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > .../... > > > > > And really, I believe it would be a good cleanup if all the standard > > > definitions for atomic64 ops (like atomic64_add_negative) were also > > > defined in include/linux/atomic.h rather than individually in every > > > atomic*.h header throughout the kernel source, except where an arch > > > wants to explicitly override it. Yet again, virtually all architectures > > > define these in exactly the same way. > > > > > > We have more than enough code in arch/ for any architecture to worry > > > about, we don't need schemes to add more when there's simple and > > > practical solutions to avoiding doing so if the right design were > > > chosen (preferably from the outset.) > > > > > > So, I'm not going to offer my ack for a change which I don't believe > > > is the correct approach. > > > > I agree with Russell, his approach is a lot easier to maintain long run, > > we should even consider converting existing definitions. > > I would rather go with "the existing definitions have to converted" and this > means "not by this patch". Right. I didn't suggest -you- had to do it as a pre-req to your patch. > At the moment, the atomic64 stuff exist only as > separate generic or arch specific implementation. It is fine that Russell King > noticed that people like Arun Sharma did a lot of work to made it true for > atomic_t, but atomic64_t is a little bit different right now (at least as I > understand it). Cheers, Ben.
