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

[Chen Gang]

On 10/02/2013 06:41 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 01:03:44PM +0100, Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 10/01/2013 05:01 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 03:05:27AM +0100, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>> 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'.
> 
> Sorry, I think I've confused you. This should be a simple change:
> 

Oh, no sorry, my English is really not quite well, and I am not quite
familiar with arm (even inline assembly language grammar, which I
should familiar).

I really should see the deals about it.


>   On ARM:
> 
>   - The atomic_t typedef is a struct containing an int.
>   - The atomic64_t typedef is a struct containing a long long.
> 
>   On arm64:
> 
>   - The atomic_t typedef is a struct containing an int.
>   - The atomic64_t typedef is a struct containing a long.
> 

Yeah.

> Now, your first patch made the handling of atomic64_t on ARM use long long
> instead of u64. That's good, because it fixes a signedness bug.
> 

OK, thanks.

> The second patch is just a clean-up, because our atomic_* functions on ARM
> interchangeably use int and unsigned long when working with atomic_t types.
> This can be tidied up by using int whenever we are reading or writing an
> atomic_t, thus matching the type definition for that structure member.
> 
> So, for example, atomic_add does not need changing because it always uses
> int to hold the atomic_t variable (the unsigned long holds the status
> returned from the strex instruction). atomic_cmpxchg, however, loads the
> atomic_t into oldval, so that should be int.
> 

OK, thank you for your details information, originally I did not check
the inline assembly code in details (which I should do).

And what you said above is reasonable to me.

After a check, I think for atomic64_*() in arm have no this kind of
issue.


> Given that this patch doesn't gain us anything in terms of functionality,
> feel free to ignore it and I can take a look when there's a rainy day (which
> should be real soon now). I also need to take a closer look at
> atomic_clear_mask for arm64, because it looks broken to me.
> 

OK, thanks. 

Hmm... after read arm64 again, at least for me, it has no this kind of
issue.

:-)

> Will
> 
> 


So the related patch is below (still based on Patch 1):

-----------------------------patch begin--------------------------------

arm/include/asm/atomic.h: use 'int' instead of 'unsigned long' for 'oldval' in atomic_cmpxchg().

  For atomic_cmpxchg(), the type of 'oldval' need be 'int' to match the
  type of "*ptr" (used by 'ldrex' instruction) and 'old' (used by 'teq'
  instruction).


Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen at asianux.com>
---
 arch/arm/include/asm/atomic.h |    3 ++-
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/atomic.h
index a715ac0..9ee7e01 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/atomic.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/atomic.h
@@ -114,7 +114,8 @@ static inline int atomic_sub_return(int i, atomic_t *v)
 
 static inline int atomic_cmpxchg(atomic_t *ptr, int old, int new)
 {
-	unsigned long oldval, res;
+	int oldval;
+	unsigned long res;
 
 	smp_mb();
 
-- 
1.7.7.6

-----------------------------patch end----------------------------------


Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang