On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 06:20:49PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
quoted
The only other comment is that I think it would be better if you use
atomic_t instead of atomic_long_t. It would just mean changing
BIT_WORD() and BIT_MASK().
It would make it pretty messy for big-endian architectures, I think...
Urgh, the big.little indians strike again.. Bah I always forget about
that.
#define BIT_U32_MASK(nr) (1UL << ((nr) % 32))
#define BIT_U32_WORD(nr) (((nr) / 32) ^ (4 * __BIG_ENDIAN__))
Or something like that might work, but I always get these things wrong.
quoted
The reason is that we generate a pretty sane set of atomic_t primitives
as long as the architecture supplies cmpxchg, but atomic64 defaults to
utter crap, even on 64bit platforms.
I think all the architectures using this today are 32-bit:
blackfin
c6x
cris
metag
openrisc
sh
xtensa
and I don't know how much we should care about optimising the generic atomic
bitops for 64-bit architectures that rely on spinlocks for 64-bit atomics!
You're probably right, but it just bugs me that we default to such
horrible crap. Arguably we should do a better default for atomic64_t on
64bit archs. But that's for another time.