Re: [PATCHv2 05/16] atomics: prepare for atomic64_fetch_add_unless()
From: Mark Rutland
Date: Tue Jun 05 2018 - 05:54:13 EST
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:26:37AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:43:35PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > /**
> > + * atomic64_add_unless - add unless the number is already a given value
> > + * @v: pointer of type atomic_t
> > + * @a: the amount to add to v...
> > + * @u: ...unless v is equal to u.
> > + *
> > + * Atomically adds @a to @v, so long as @v was not already @u.
> > + * Returns non-zero if @v was not @u, and zero otherwise.
> I always get confused by that wording; would something like: "Returns
> true if the addition was done" not be more clear?
Sounds clearer to me; I just stole the wording from the existing
I guess you'll want similar for the conditional inc/dec ops, e.g.
* atomic_inc_not_zero - increment unless the number is zero
* @v: pointer of type atomic_t
* Atomically increments @v by 1, so long as @v is non-zero.
* Returns non-zero if @v was non-zero, and zero otherwise.
> > + */
> > +#ifdef atomic64_fetch_add_unless
> > +static inline int atomic64_add_unless(atomic64_t *v, long long a, long long u)
> Do we want to make that a "bool' return?
I think so -- that's what the instrumented wrappers (and x86) do today
anyhow, and what I ended up using for the generated headers.
I'll spin a prep patch cleaning up the existing fallbacks in
<linux/atomic.h>, along with the comment fixup above, then rework the