Re: [PATCH] select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 for c6x/score/unicore32 archs

2012-08-15 Thread Mark Salter
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 22:12 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > Should I push this through the c6x tree? > > That'd be good. For consistency, will you also include the > GENERIC_ATOMIC64 chunk in the titled patch? > > I can send Andrew an updated series (reducing the c6x changes, and > possibly the

Re: [PATCH] select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 for c6x/score/unicore32 archs

2012-08-15 Thread Fengguang Wu
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 09:42:58AM -0400, Mark Salter wrote: > On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 10:36 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > -#define L1_CACHE_BYTESL2_CACHE_BYTES > > > +#define L1_CACHE_SHIFTL2_CACHE_SHIFT > > > +#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 << L2_CACHE_SHIFT) > > > > Nitpick:

Re: [PATCH] select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 for c6x/score/unicore32 archs

2012-08-15 Thread Mark Salter
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 10:36 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > -#define L1_CACHE_BYTESL2_CACHE_BYTES > > +#define L1_CACHE_SHIFTL2_CACHE_SHIFT > > +#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 << L2_CACHE_SHIFT) > > Nitpick: the last line could better be: > > +#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 <<

Re: [PATCH] select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 for c6x/score/unicore32 archs

2012-08-15 Thread Mark Salter
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 10:36 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: -#define L1_CACHE_BYTESL2_CACHE_BYTES +#define L1_CACHE_SHIFTL2_CACHE_SHIFT +#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 L2_CACHE_SHIFT) Nitpick: the last line could better be: +#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1

Re: [PATCH] select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 for c6x/score/unicore32 archs

2012-08-15 Thread Fengguang Wu
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 09:42:58AM -0400, Mark Salter wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 10:36 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: -#define L1_CACHE_BYTESL2_CACHE_BYTES +#define L1_CACHE_SHIFTL2_CACHE_SHIFT +#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 L2_CACHE_SHIFT) Nitpick: the last line

Re: [PATCH] select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 for c6x/score/unicore32 archs

2012-08-15 Thread Mark Salter
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 22:12 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: Should I push this through the c6x tree? That'd be good. For consistency, will you also include the GENERIC_ATOMIC64 chunk in the titled patch? I can send Andrew an updated series (reducing the c6x changes, and possibly the

Re: [PATCH] select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 for c6x/score/unicore32 archs

2012-08-14 Thread guanxuetao
> Sorry I have no compilers for build testing these changes, however the > risk looks low and it's much better than to leave the arch broken, > considering that Eric will do atomic64_t in the core fs/namespace.c code. > > CC: "Eric W. Biederman" > Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu It looks ok for

Re: [PATCH] select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 for c6x/score/unicore32 archs

2012-08-14 Thread Fengguang Wu
> -#define L1_CACHE_BYTESL2_CACHE_BYTES > +#define L1_CACHE_SHIFTL2_CACHE_SHIFT > +#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 << L2_CACHE_SHIFT) Nitpick: the last line could better be: +#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 << L1_CACHE_SHIFT) Reviewed-by: Fengguang Wu Thanks! -- To

Re: [PATCH] select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 for c6x/score/unicore32 archs

2012-08-14 Thread Fengguang Wu
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:22:49PM -0400, Mark Salter wrote: > On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 23:34 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > Sorry I have no compilers for build testing these changes, however the > > risk looks low and it's much better than to leave the arch broken, > > considering that Eric will do

Re: [PATCH] select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 for c6x/score/unicore32 archs

2012-08-14 Thread Mark Salter
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 23:34 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > Sorry I have no compilers for build testing these changes, however the > risk looks low and it's much better than to leave the arch broken, > considering that Eric will do atomic64_t in the core fs/namespace.c > code. > > CC: "Eric W.

[PATCH] select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 for c6x/score/unicore32 archs

2012-08-14 Thread Fengguang Wu
Sorry I have no compilers for build testing these changes, however the risk looks low and it's much better than to leave the arch broken, considering that Eric will do atomic64_t in the core fs/namespace.c code. CC: "Eric W. Biederman" Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu --- Andrew: the arch

[PATCH] select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 for c6x/score/unicore32 archs

2012-08-14 Thread Fengguang Wu
Sorry I have no compilers for build testing these changes, however the risk looks low and it's much better than to leave the arch broken, considering that Eric will do atomic64_t in the core fs/namespace.c code. CC: Eric W. Biederman ebied...@xmission.com Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu

Re: [PATCH] select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 for c6x/score/unicore32 archs

2012-08-14 Thread Mark Salter
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 23:34 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: Sorry I have no compilers for build testing these changes, however the risk looks low and it's much better than to leave the arch broken, considering that Eric will do atomic64_t in the core fs/namespace.c code. CC: Eric W. Biederman

Re: [PATCH] select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 for c6x/score/unicore32 archs

2012-08-14 Thread Fengguang Wu
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:22:49PM -0400, Mark Salter wrote: On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 23:34 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: Sorry I have no compilers for build testing these changes, however the risk looks low and it's much better than to leave the arch broken, considering that Eric will do

Re: [PATCH] select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 for c6x/score/unicore32 archs

2012-08-14 Thread Fengguang Wu
-#define L1_CACHE_BYTESL2_CACHE_BYTES +#define L1_CACHE_SHIFTL2_CACHE_SHIFT +#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 L2_CACHE_SHIFT) Nitpick: the last line could better be: +#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 L1_CACHE_SHIFT) Reviewed-by: Fengguang Wu fengguang...@intel.com Thanks!

Re: [PATCH] select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 for c6x/score/unicore32 archs

2012-08-14 Thread guanxuetao
Sorry I have no compilers for build testing these changes, however the risk looks low and it's much better than to leave the arch broken, considering that Eric will do atomic64_t in the core fs/namespace.c code. CC: Eric W. Biederman ebied...@xmission.com Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu