Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> writes: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 08:54:03PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> writes: >> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:26:37AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:43:35PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: >> >> > /** >> >> > + * atomic64_add_unless - add unless the number is already a given value >> >> > + * @v: pointer of type atomic_t >> >> > + * @a: the amount to add to v... >> >> > + * @u: ...unless v is equal to u. >> >> > + * >> >> > + * Atomically adds @a to @v, so long as @v was not already @u. >> >> > + * Returns non-zero if @v was not @u, and zero otherwise. >> >> >> >> I always get confused by that wording; would something like: "Returns >> >> true if the addition was done" not be more clear? >> > >> > Sounds clearer to me; I just stole the wording from the existing >> > atomic_add_unless(). >> > >> > I guess you'll want similar for the conditional inc/dec ops, e.g. >> > >> > /** >> > * atomic_inc_not_zero - increment unless the number is zero >> > * @v: pointer of type atomic_t >> > * >> > * Atomically increments @v by 1, so long as @v is non-zero. >> > * Returns non-zero if @v was non-zero, and zero otherwise. >> > */ >> >> If we're bike-shedding .. :) >> >> I think "so long as" is overly wordy and not helpful. It'd be clearer >> just as: >> >> * Atomically increments @v by 1, if @v is non-zero. > > I agree; done.
Thanks. cheers
