[PATCH 2/2] ARM: include: asm: use 'int' instead of 'unsigned long' for normal register variables within atomic.h

[Chen Gang]

On 10/01/2013 05:01 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 03:05:27AM +0100, Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 10/01/2013 12:11 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 04:52:28AM +0100, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>> "arc/arm" will be never on 64-bit, it is mainly on 32-bit (may also can
>>>> be on 16-bit).
>>>>
>>>> So better to use 'int' instead of 'unsigned long' for normal register
>>>> variable (on 16-bit, 'int' is allowed to be 16-bit, so historically,
>>>> often use 'int' for normal register variables).
>>>
>>> This commit message doesn't make a blind bit of sense! arch/arm/ is a 32-bit
>>> architecture in the sense that int will always be 32-bit there. This patch
>>> is just a cosmetic change, bringing our atomic_t manipulation code inline
>>> with the atomic_t type definition.
>>>
>>
>> OK, thanks. That means: "arm means arm 32-bit, arm64 means arm 64-bit.
>> The current Linux kernel main line does not support arm 16-bit".
>>
>> Since "bringing our atomic_t ... with the atomic_t type definition", can
>> we use 'atomic_t" instead of 'unsigned long'?
>>
>> And can we use 'atomic64_t" instead of 'unsigned long' in atomic64_*()?
> 
> That's probably a bit dodgy, since they are typedefs to compound types
> which, if ever extended, would fall to bits if we tried to pack them into a
> single register.
> 

Excuse me, my English is not quite well, I guess your meaning is: "in
'atomic.h', for arm/arm64, let register variables type equal to related
atomic type: use 64-bit type if 'atomic64_t', 32-bit type if 'atomic_t'.

If what I guess is correct, please continue reading, or please help
repeat again (not need reading below contents), thanks.


Can we say: "under arm, using 'unsigned long' for register related
variables in atomic64_*() is not suitable (although not a bug), need use
'long long' (which is 'atomic64_t' under arm) instead of"?

And under arm64, can we use 'int' (which is 'atomic_t' under 64-bit arm)
instead of 'unsigned long' for register related variables in atomic_*()?

I feel, if both of them above are correct, your idea sounds reasonable,
or it seems your idea is a little complex (at least, keeping original
implementation no touch is still not a bad idea).


> Will
> 
> 

Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang