Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 08:34:27 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, peterz@infradead.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, mcgrof@kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        sfr@canb.auug.org.au, nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com,
        rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk, msalter@redhat.com, tklauser@distanz.ch,
        james.hogan@imgtec.com, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com,
        linux@roeck-us.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, albert@sifive.com,
        patches@groups.riscv.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] RISC-V: User-facing API
Message-ID: <20170706153427.GA30746@infradead.org>
References: <20170704195102.3974-1-palmer@dabbelt.com>
 <20170704195102.3974-9-palmer@dabbelt.com>
 <20170706020141.GA1965@infradead.org>
 <20170706085503.GA15053@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170706085503.GA15053@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 519
Lines: 9

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 09:55:03AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Agreed on the indirection; it feels like this is something that should be in
> the vDSO, which could use the cmpxchg instruction if it's available, or
> otherwise just uses plain loads and stores.

Even that seems like a lot of indirection for something that is in
the critical fast path for synchronization.  I really can't understand
how a new ISA / ABI could even come up with an idea as stupid as making
essential synchronization primitives optional.