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;
Date:   Wed, 22 Mar 2023 08:50:42 +0100
From:   Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
To:     Leonardo Bras Soares Passos <leobras@redhat.com>
Cc:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH v2 1/6] riscv/cmpxchg: Deduplicate cmpxchg()
 asm functions
Message-ID: <ZBqzUplarOxIXrvN@andrea>
References: <20230321074249.2221674-1-leobras@redhat.com>
 <20230321074249.2221674-2-leobras@redhat.com>
 <ZBpPms0PGv4sWR1Y@andrea>
 <CAJ6HWG46-an3r3WH+n8mHHge8SjqgMbohjTmmk=_EXVmwKZSeA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJ6HWG46-an3r3WH+n8mHHge8SjqgMbohjTmmk=_EXVmwKZSeA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

> > Though I'm not really a fan of macros depending on local variables with
> > "magic" names, can this be avoided?
> 
> You mean __ret, __rc, __ptr, __old and __new ?

Indeed, the wording was from coding-style.rst


> If so, yes, we could add them to the macro signature, but it would
> become quite big with not much to gain. To reduce impact it could be
> something like:
> 
> +#define ___cmpxchg(lr_sfx, sc_sfx, prepend, append, ret, r, p, o, n)
> 
> Is this a possible fix?

I believe that'll do it, open to other approaches.

  Andrea