Re: [cpuops cmpxchg double V1 1/4] Generic support forthis_cpu_cmpxchg_double

[Christoph Lameter]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> There are two return registers; two machine registers can be returned in
> registers.  [u]int128 is poorly implemented in a lot of gcc versions,
> since it really hasn't been exercised.  However, two-word structures
> should work.  I do not believe a two-word *array* works, though.

Oh gosh. So we would be using a tight corner case for gcc that may only
work with certain versions of gcc? Note that the current version does only
return a boolean. There is no need for returning double words. I'd be
happy if we could *pass* double words.

> > If we can indeed pass 128 bit entities (as claimed by hpa) via registers
> > then the logical choice would be to do
> >
> > 	this_cpu_cmpxchg_16(pcp, old, new)
> >
> > instead of cmpxchg_double. All parameters would have to be bit.
> > Then we can avoid the strange cmpxchg_double semantics and can completely
> > avoid introducing those.
>
> I'm not sure it works with passing in a structure.

I think then we better leave it as is. The use case so far is minimal so
we could easily change that if we get to a better solution later.
--
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/