On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 07:07:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > Longer-term, I think things could be simplified if we were to rework the > headers such that we have: > > * arch/*/include/asm/atomic.h providing arch_atomic_*(). > > * include/linux/atomic-raw.h building raw_atomic_*() atop of the > arch_atomic_*() definitions, filling in gaps in the API. Having > separate arch_ and raw_ namespaces would simplify the ifdeffery. > > * include/linux/atomic.h building atomic_*() atop of the raw_atomic_*() > definitions, complete with any instrumentation. Instrumenting at this > level would lower the instrumentation overhead, and would not require > any ifdeffery as the whole raw_atomic_*() API would be available. > > ... I've avoided this for the time being due to the necessary churn in > arch code.
I'm not entirely sure I get the point of raw_atomic, we only need to instrument the arch_atomic bits, right? When those are done, everything that's build on top will also automagically be instrumented.
