Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 4 Jul 2018 16:28:47 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        boqun.feng@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 08/11] atomics: switch to generated fallbacks
Message-ID: <20180704152846.GL4828@arm.com>
References: <20180625105952.3756-1-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <20180625105952.3756-9-mark.rutland@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180625105952.3756-9-mark.rutland@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:59:49AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> As a step to ensuring the atomic* APIs are consistent, switch to fallbacks
> generated by gen-atomic-fallback.sh.
> 
> These are checked in rather than generated with Kbuild, since:
> 
> * This allows inspection of the atomics with git grep and ctags on a
>   pristine tree, which Linus strongly prefers being able to do.
> 
> * The fallbacks are not expected to change very often, and are not
>   affected by machine details or configuration options, so regenerating
>   them for *every* build is somewhat wasteful.
> 
> * These are included by files required *very* early in the build process
>   (e.g. for generating bounds.h), and we'd rather not complicate the
>   top-level Kbuild file.

Would it be worth checking that the generated output from the script doesn't
differ from the file in tree at some point during the build, and issuing a
warning if they do?

Will