Received: by 2002:ad5:474a:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id i10csp3899239imu; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 11:02:00 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5y0Jo+Aaz5lyyU3L4MGamCj58yEpX4cDgzMPM0AQazYzUhZxk8ElvIWE2us+F6Lk3cYCkF X-Received: by 2002:aa7:81d0:: with SMTP id c16mr26604050pfn.153.1547492519961; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 11:01:59 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1547492519; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=jP+uAMyi22j8WFP9Nh9H4QVqlRoEwa/Ghx9aBTNGKKRfcEAxfa8fpFGSvWY3nwLFP4 xqop41uLJjDPUjHSbsI+Aw1mreo5EJOafUAfJBkvBVXev0+NwUxbTUr0SLRNPdU2ZgAj Yv3CQaCpT+r6QVj8cIbRoy1tKEMucYexHdsuURXIfUK2rMkCtZQkz0AOq4oNOn1//y11 NNRs1JorGGQiyOTzut+Gu6JhnOoYexovg3gUJvR5jCUbbTyNgaMcZAaSRUkfYs4fsepK BJgW1Wrwo2LIhIEMqnA+TEn8iKN3puSNHvJ111QuWy0l/fTnWJTemqUl4pNgr/h9tfV/ +Qdg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=IrAIKaA/ATzF8lHaNcNfPgB6QpjfJAMgER/53B5CAYE=; b=ybfVWF59vqDFymnLMHMdnnMo+pGnXZyXNcefJCAOkOePnDr0baLV/+2Vjfie5jdG/o WzHG9fG8/gcdznUMe2vhCFIi9FHozw5x7fwPHL/D9HW/OF1kQ4aiOU30T3vho81h5piv 3vXdZ2vf4r1wjq3gOWu+qyyY2JbTgTzEmqIX81hg3pGn9s+GdXgYzXT3ZnZls7pSwr9E vT6hDWNSUcz6JlQtnb66iPBdOfuIomlsyKZoJmMhi30Kp++XZyYyvfHZkaySnc5qguCy mrig8qDCteSHJ/VTsUEKJL9Wec4/R6HXiOW3SJmiDcXEG2eN4wyWw4uiTPkFppzjAYg5 Kl1Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v21si893261plo.417.2019.01.14.11.01.42; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 11:01:59 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726773AbfANTAd (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 14 Jan 2019 14:00:33 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:39054 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726643AbfANTAd (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jan 2019 14:00:33 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D07480D; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 11:00:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from fuggles.cambridge.arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F0243F5BD; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 11:00:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 19:00:25 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: Vineet Gupta Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, peterz@infradead.org, Miklos Szeredi , Ingo Molnar , Jani Nikula , Chris Wilson , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] bitops.h: set_mask_bits() to return old value Message-ID: <20190114190025.GA29167@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1547166387-19785-1-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> <1547166387-19785-4-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1547166387-19785-4-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1+86 (6f28e57d73f2) () Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 04:26:27PM -0800, Vineet Gupta wrote: > | > Also, set_mask_bits is used in fs quite a bit and we can possibly come up > | > with a generic llsc based implementation (w/o the cmpxchg loop) > | > | May I also suggest changing the return value of set_mask_bits() to old. > | > | You can compute the new value given old, but you cannot compute the old > | value given new, therefore old is the better return value. Also, no > | current user seems to use the return value, so changing it is without > | risk. > > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20150807110955.GH16853@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net > Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra > Cc: Miklos Szeredi > Cc: Ingo Molnar > Cc: Jani Nikula > Cc: Chris Wilson > Cc: Andrew Morton > Cc: Will Deacon > Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta > --- > include/linux/bitops.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h > index 705f7c442691..602af23b98c7 100644 > --- a/include/linux/bitops.h > +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h > @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ static __always_inline void __assign_bit(long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr, > new__ = (old__ & ~mask__) | bits__; \ > } while (cmpxchg(ptr, old__, new__) != old__); \ > \ > - new__; \ > + old__; \ > }) > #endif Acked-by: Will Deacon May also explain why no in-tree users appear to use the return value! Will