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> <CAHp75Vf9Oj5DsGveN32i0A2TqudS+DXfhJYUOzSMJ6VD_A+2Ow@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200730075040.GA21623@gondor.apana.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20200730075040.GA21623@gondor.apana.org.au>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Jul 2020 10:55:46 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vde7nVV0RzELF7wtbRGVf3hhAKb-104F+VTMLoNj5sfvA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] locking/qspinlock: Break qspinlock_types.h header loop
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com>,
        Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com>,
        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 10:51 AM Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:47:16AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >
> > We may ask Synopsys folks to look at this as well.
> > Vineet, any ideas if we may unify ATOMIC64_INIT() across the architectures?
>
> I don't think there is any technical difficulty.  The custom
> atomic64_t simply adds an alignment requirement so the initialisor
> remains the same.
>
> I just didn't want to add more complexity to the existing patch.
> As a follow-up patch it should be quite straightforward.

Ah, I see what you mean. I considered the follow up patch as well, I
thought there were some bigger impediments.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko