Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Nov 2010 12:39:27 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] atomic: add atomic_inc_not_zero_hint() |
| |
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 20:20:44 +0100 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le vendredi 05 novembre 2010 __ 11:28 -0700, Andrew Morton a __crit : > > But we haven't established that there _is_ duplicated code which needs > > that treatment. > > > > Scanning arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h, perhaps ATOMIC_INIT() is a > > candidate. But I'm not sure that it _should_ be hoisted up - if every > > architecture happens to do it the same way then that's just a fluke. > > > > > > Not sure I understand you. I was trying to avoid recursive includes, but > that should be protected anyway. I see a lot of code that could be > factorized in this new header (atomic_inc_not_zero() for example)
Ah. I wasn't able to see much duplicated code at all, so I wasn't sure that we needed to bother about this issue.
yup, atomic_inc_not_zero() looks like a candidate.
> [PATCH v3] atomic: add atomic_inc_not_zero_hint()
Let's go with this for now ;)
I'll assume that you intend to make use of this function soon, and it looks safe enough to sneak it into 2.6.37-rc2, IMO. If Linus shouts at me then we could merge it into 2.6.38-rc1 via net-next, but I think straight-to-mainline is best.
| |