Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 00/33] locking/atomic: convert all architectures to ARCH_ATOMIC | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Date | Sun, 27 Jun 2021 14:47:11 -0700 |
| |
On 6/18/21 1:48 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 10:56:16PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 5/25/21 7:01 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: >>> This series (based on v5.13-rc2) converts all architectures to >>> ARCH_ATOMIC. This will allow the use of instrumented atomics on all >>> architectures (e.g. for KASAN and similar), and simplifies the core >>> atomic code (which should allow for easier rework of the fallbacks and >>> other bits in future). > > [...] > >> Hi Mark, >> Sorry for the late reply. > > Hi Randy, > > Likewise, apologies in the delay in getting to this! > >> I was just trying to update a patch >> to arch/sh/include/asm/cmpxchg.h, in its xchg() macro: >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210602231443.4670-2-rdunlap@infradead.org/ >> >> The patch simply converts xchg() to a GCC statement expression to >> eliminate a build warning.
Hm, with your locking/atomic patch series applied (in linux-next), I can no longer make arch/sh/ get this build warning:
../fs/ocfs2/file.c: In function 'ocfs2_file_write_iter': ../arch/sh/include/asm/cmpxchg.h:49:3: warning: value computed is not used [-Wunused-value] 49 | ((__typeof__(*(ptr)))__xchg((ptr),(unsigned long)(x), sizeof(*(ptr))))
so I will go ahead with the rest of my arch/sh/ patches and then contemplate what to do about this one.
>> Arnd has done this for m68k and I have done it for sparc in the past. >> >> Is there any (good) reason that all versions of arch_xchg() are not >> statement expressions? In this patch series, they seem to be quite >> mixed (as they were before this patch series). I count 11 arches >> that use a statement expression and 4 that do not (including arch/sh/). > > Largely I tried to make the minimal change from what was there before, > and I didn't have any specific reason to either use or avoid statement > expressions. > > This series has been queued in the tip tree's locking/core branch for a > while now, but we could spin a patch atop. Do you want to spin a patch > to convert the remaining 4 architectures in one go?
I'll look at the 4 remaining arches later..
thanks. -- ~Randy
| |