Re: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h

Hello Mita-san, and folks,

From: [email protected] (Akinobu Mita)
Subject: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:32:06 +0900
> o generic {,test_and_}{set,clear,change}_bit() (atomic bitops)
> 
> This patch introduces the C-language equivalents of the functions below:
> void set_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
> void clear_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
...
> int test_and_change_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr);
> 
> HAVE_ARCH_ATOMIC_BITOPS is defined when the architecture has its own
> version of these functions.
> 
> This code largely copied from:
> include/asm-powerpc/bitops.h
> include/asm-parisc/bitops.h
> include/asm-parisc/atomic.h

Could you tell me more about the new generic {set,clear,test}_bit()
routines?

Why do you copied these routines from parisc and employed them
 as generic ones?
I'm not sure whether these generic {set,clear,test}_bit() routines
are really generic or not.

> +/* Can't use raw_spin_lock_irq because of #include problems, so
> + * this is the substitute */
> +#define _atomic_spin_lock_irqsave(l,f) do {	\
> +	raw_spinlock_t *s = ATOMIC_HASH(l);	\
> +	local_irq_save(f);			\
> +	__raw_spin_lock(s);			\
> +} while(0)
> +
> +#define _atomic_spin_unlock_irqrestore(l,f) do {	\
> +	raw_spinlock_t *s = ATOMIC_HASH(l);		\
> +	__raw_spin_unlock(s);				\
> +	local_irq_restore(f);				\
> +} while(0)

Is there a possibility that these routines affect for archs
with no HAVE_ARCH_ATOMIC_BITOPS for SMP ?
I think __raw_spin_lock() is sufficient and local_irqsave() is 
not necessary in general atomic routines.

If the parisc's LDCW instruction required disabling interrupts,
it would be parisc specific and not generic case, I think, 
although I'm not familier with the parisc architecture...

-- Takata