Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200729210311.425d0e9b@canb.auug.org.au> <20200729114757.GA19388@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <20200729122807.GA7047@gondor.apana.org.au> <ed62ba67-0e1d-3fee-8c09-7750d5690be5@redhat.com>
 <CAHp75VdbZu008RcxNhMysoqBs2FSPXWv+au_ROJ7FPVd0uOhtg@mail.gmail.com> <20200730005922.GA9710@gondor.apana.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20200730005922.GA9710@gondor.apana.org.au>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Jul 2020 10:47:16 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vf9Oj5DsGveN32i0A2TqudS+DXfhJYUOzSMJ6VD_A+2Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] locking/qspinlock: Break qspinlock_types.h header loop
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com>,
        Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 4:00 AM Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 06:04:57PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:35 PM Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/29/20 8:28 AM, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > This patch series looks good to me. I just wonder if we should also move
> > > ATOMIC64_INIT() to types.h for symmetry purpose. Anyway,
> >
> > Same question here.
>
> Yes I almost started doing it but at least one architecture (arc)
> had a custom atomic64_t so I kept it out just to be on the safe
> side.

We may ask Synopsys folks to look at this as well.
Vineet, any ideas if we may unify ATOMIC64_INIT() across the architectures?

> We certainly could do this as a follow-up patch.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko