[RFC PATCH v2 00/12] Rewrite asm-generic/bitops/{atomic,lock}.h and use on arm64

Hi Masahiro,

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:56:28PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:

2018-03-01 16:16 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada [off-list ref]:

quoted

2018-02-27 0:04 GMT+09:00 Will Deacon [off-list ref]:

quoted

Hi everyone,

This is version two of the RFC I previously posted here:

  https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg634719.html

Changes since v1 include:

  * Fixed __clear_bit_unlock to work on archs with lock-based atomics
  * Moved lock ops into bitops/lock.h
  * Fixed build breakage on lesser-spotted architectures

Trying to fix the circular #includes introduced by pulling atomic.h
into btops/lock.h has been driving me insane. I've ended up moving some
basic BIT definitions into bits.h, but this might all be better in
const.h which is being proposed by Masahiro. Feedback is especially
welcome on this part.

Info for reviewers:

You can see my patches at the following:

1/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235457/
2/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235461/
3/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235463/
4/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235469/
5/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235471/


5/5 has conflict with Will's 2/12.

Fortunately, it is at the tail of the series.
It is easy to pick/drop/change
when we decide how to organize it.

No comments so far about this part.

I think your approach is better
since putting BIT* macros into a single header
is more consistent.

So, I will ask Andrew to drop mine.

Thanks.

However, I think <linux/bits.h> will make more sense
than <asm-generic/bits.h>

These macros are really arch-agnostic.
So, we would not expect to have <asm/bits.h>
that could fall back to <asm-generic/bits.h>, right?

That's fair. I'll do a respin using linux/*.

Cheers,

Will