Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To:     'Daniel Vetter' <daniel@ffwll.ch>
CC:     'Jani Nikula' <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        'Andrzej Hajda' <andrzej.hajda@intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/5] linux/minmax.h: add non-atomic version of
 xchg
Thread-Topic: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/5] linux/minmax.h: add non-atomic version
 of xchg
Thread-Index: AQHZC+X/n2yHksRnF0Csd/+tl8P8Ka5qAX6ggCX6JSGAAADCAIAAC3eAgAAFAzA=
Date:   Thu, 5 Jan 2023 14:41:43 +0000
Message-ID: <6617dfb150f94cbb9654a585843e3287@AcuMS.aculab.com>
References: <20221209154843.4162814-1-andrzej.hajda@intel.com>
 <f58ab17e5c6c4a4e8b0d687b44618c51@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <Y7bK8drngH/NIlOa@phenom.ffwll.local> <875ydlw1p4.fsf@intel.com>
 <733cd0037bd14a269b54d701e1b80323@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <Y7ba8UlkhjpJI4F0@phenom.ffwll.local>
In-Reply-To: <Y7ba8UlkhjpJI4F0@phenom.ffwll.local>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

From: Daniel Vetter
> Sent: 05 January 2023 14:13
...
> > > So here we are, with Andrzej looking to add the common helper. And the
> > > same concerns crop up. What should it be called to make it clear that
> > > it's not atomic? Is that possible?
> >
> > old_value = read_write(variable, new_value);
> >
> > But two statements are much clearer.
> 
> Yeah this is my point for fetch_and_zero or any of the other proposals.
> We're essentially replacing these two lines:
> 
> 	var = some->pointer->chase;
> 	some->pointer->chase = NULL;
> 
> with a macro. C is verbose, and sometimes painfully so,

Try ADA or VHDL :-)

> if the pointer
> chase is really to onerous then I think that should be refactored with a
> meaningfully locally name variable, not fancy macros wrapped around to
> golf a few characters away.

Provided 'var' is a local the compiler is pretty likely to only do the
'pointer chase' once.
You can also do:
	var = NULL;
	swap(some->pointer->chase, var);
and get pretty much the same object code.

> But what about swap() you ask? That one needs a temp variable, and it does
> make sense to hide that in a ({}) block in a macro.

Sometimes, but not enough for the 'missed opportunity for swap()'
message. 

> But for the above two
> lines I really don't see a point outside of obfuscated C contexts.

Indeed.

Isn't the suggested __xchg() in one of the 'reserved for implementation'
namespaces - so shouldn't be a function that might be expected to be
actually used.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)