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: <20210729082549.144559-1-wangrui@loongson.cn> <20210729095342.GB8286@alpha.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <20210729095342.GB8286@alpha.franken.de>
From:   hev <r@hev.cc>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:00:47 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHirt9htUrD5WCCSWwkD50WMTHC4nMXxr44YNMEfznUWSv_EJw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] locking/atomic: arch/mips: Fix atomic{_64,}_sub_if_positive
To:     Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
Cc:     Rui Wang <wangrui@loongson.cn>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 5:53 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
<tsbogend@alpha.franken.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 04:25:49PM +0800, Rui Wang wrote:
> > This looks like a typo and that caused atomic64 test failed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rui Wang <wangrui@loongson.cn>
> > Signed-off-by: hev <r@hev.cc>
> > ---
> >  arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h
> > index 95e1f7f3597f..a0b9e7c1e4fc 100644
> > --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h
> > +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h
> > @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ ATOMIC_OPS(atomic64, xor, s64, ^=, xor, lld, scd)
> >   * The function returns the old value of @v minus @i.
> >   */
> >  #define ATOMIC_SIP_OP(pfx, type, op, ll, sc)                         \
> > -static __inline__ int arch_##pfx##_sub_if_positive(type i, pfx##_t * v)      \
> > +static __inline__ type arch_##pfx##_sub_if_positive(type i, pfx##_t * v)     \
> >  {                                                                    \
> >       type temp, result;                                              \
> >                                                                       \
>
> sub_if_postive looks unused to me. Could you send a patch removing it
> instead ? riscv also has a sub_if_positive implementation, which looks
> unused.
Okay.

Regards,
Rui

>
> Thomas.
>
> --
> Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
> good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]