> On Mar 1, 2023, at 2:43 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 20:18:11 +0100
> Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> If we want to put the definition in generic headers, then we also need
>> to define acquire/release/relaxed and 64bit variants. ATM, we have two
>> sites that require this definition and I think that for now we could
>> live with two instances of the same definition in two separate
>> subsystems. But this would definitely be a good future addition. There
>> is some code in the form of
>>
>> if (cmpxchg (ptr, 0, 1) == 0)
>>
>> that can not be converted to try_cmpxchg, but can use cmpxchg_success.
>
> And even modify code that uses temp variables. For example, where you
> modified the ring buffer code to use try_cmpxchg(), I could convert your:
>
> static int rb_head_page_replace(struct buffer_page *old,
> struct buffer_page *new)
> {
> unsigned long *ptr = (unsigned long *)&old->list.prev->next;
> unsigned long val;
>
> val = *ptr & ~RB_FLAG_MASK;
> val |= RB_PAGE_HEAD;
>
> return try_cmpxchg(ptr, &val, (unsigned long)&new->list);
> }
>
> Into just:
>
> static int rb_head_page_replace(struct buffer_page *old,
> struct buffer_page *new)
> {
> unsigned long *ptr = (unsigned long *)&old->list.prev->next;
> unsigned long val;
>
> val = *ptr & ~RB_FLAG_MASK;
>
> return cmpxchg_success(ptr, val | RB_PAGE_HEAD, (unsigned long)&new->list);
> }
Nice! Looks much better.
Thanks,
- Joel
>
> -- Steve
