Re: [RFC PATCH] locking/atomic: arch/mips: Fix atomic{_64,}_sub_if_positive

[Thomas Bogendoerfer]

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@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: hev <r@xxxxxx>
> ---
>  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.

Thomas.

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