On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:21:42 -1000
Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 2/23/24 08:20, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > The qatomic_cmpxchg() and qatomic_cmpxchg__nocheck() macros have
> > a comment that reads:
> > Returns the eventual value, failed or not
> >
> > This is somewhere between cryptic and wrong, since the value actually
> > returned is the value that was in memory before the cmpxchg. Reword
> > to match how we describe these macros in atomics.rst.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > include/qemu/atomic.h | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/qemu/atomic.h b/include/qemu/atomic.h
> > index f1d3d1702a9..99110abefb3 100644
> > --- a/include/qemu/atomic.h
> > +++ b/include/qemu/atomic.h
> > @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@
> > qatomic_xchg__nocheck(ptr, i); \
> > })
> >
> > -/* Returns the eventual value, failed or not */
> > +/* Returns the old value of '*ptr' (whether the cmpxchg failed or not) */
> > #define qatomic_cmpxchg__nocheck(ptr, old, new) ({ \
> > typeof_strip_qual(*ptr) _old = (old); \
> > (void)__atomic_compare_exchange_n(ptr, &_old, new, false, \
> >
>
> Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.came...@huawei.com>
As the person it confused ;)
>
> r~
