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: <1618634729-88821-1-git-send-email-guoren@kernel.org>
 <1618634729-88821-2-git-send-email-guoren@kernel.org> <CAK8P3a1ygwS7jTXqYXCfppEEonCASqG_5GM9O_AtE9YgdgNqVQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a1ygwS7jTXqYXCfppEEonCASqG_5GM9O_AtE9YgdgNqVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 20 Apr 2021 09:22:33 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJF2gTRkWD6NcfriQhLBYL0eBafNmLx1Kw_Rmaex3851SzVBWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 (RESEND) 2/2] riscv: atomic: Using ARCH_ATOMIC in asm/atomic.h
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-csky@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 7:46 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 6:45 AM <guoren@kernel.org> wrote:
> > +#define arch_atomic_read(v)                    __READ_ONCE((v)->counter)
> > +#define arch_atomic_set(v, i)                  __WRITE_ONCE(((v)->counter), (i))
>
> > +#define ATOMIC64_INIT                          ATOMIC_INIT
> > +#define arch_atomic64_read                     arch_atomic_read
> > +#define arch_atomic64_set                      arch_atomic_set
> >  #endif
>
> I think it's a bit confusing to define arch_atomic64_read() etc in terms
> of arch_atomic_read(), given that they operate on different types.
>
> IMHO the clearest would be to define both in terms of the open-coded
> version you have for the 32-bit atomics.
Okay:

 +#define arch_atomic64_read                     __READ_ONCE((v)->counter)
 +#define arch_atomic64_set
__WRITE_ONCE(((v)->counter), (i))

>
> Also, given that all three architectures (x86, arm64, riscv) use the same
> definitions for the six macros above, maybe those can just get moved
> into a common file with a possible override?
I'll try it with a separate patch.

>
> x86 uses an inline function here instead of the macro. This would also
> be my preference, but it may add complexity to avoid circular header
> dependencies.
>
> The rest of this patch looks good to me.
>
>         Arnd


-- 
Best Regards
 Guo Ren

ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/