Re: [RFC][PATCH 23/24] atomic: Collapse all atomic_{set,clear}_mask definitions

[Chris Metcalf]

On 07/10/2015 12:27 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 02:42:56PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > The obvious question though is whether we have an established name for this
> > operation elsewhere in the kernel, and whether we should have consistency.
> Consistency is good.
>
> > In include/linux, we already have (grepping for 'and_*not'):
> >
> > include/linux/nodemask.h:#define nodes_andnot(dst, src1, src2) \
> > include/linux/bitmap.h:extern int __bitmap_andnot(unsigned long *dst, const unsigned long *bitmap1,
> > include/linux/cpumask.h:static inline int cpumask_andnot(struct cpumask *dstp,
> >
> > We also have:
> >
> > include/linux/signal.h:#define _sig_andn(x,y)       ((x) & ~(y))
> >
> > which seems to be the only instance of "andn" in include/.
> How about I rename the _sig_andn one to _sig_andnot, and go with
> atomic_andnot, to match the *mask functions.

On further examination, there is also FUTEX_OP_ANDN, which is originally 
what
inspired me to use the name atomic_andn().  So I think churning the 
nomenclature
around for tilepro isn't really particularly helpful, and I won't bother.

In any case I think "andn" and "andnot" are both fine names for 
atomic_xxx :-)

--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/