On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 10:11:37AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Peter Zijlstra [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 09:58:15AM -0700, tip-bot for Kees Cook wrote:

quoted

locking/refcount: Create unchecked atomic_t implementation

This seems to do only half the job. Here's the rest.

---
Subject: locking/refcount: Finish unchecked atomic_t implementation

For some reason the unchecked atomic_t implementation stopped half-way
through, complete it it.

Hmm? The reason is that the implementation of the remaining functions
is unchanged between full, unchecked, and x86.

But they're wasted code if !arch because the existing atomic functions
are adequate (and I would argue better in case of atomic_add_unless).

And arch implementations would certainly want to reimplement dec_not_one.

Plus, you completely failed mention any of this.