Re: [PATCH 1/5] linux/minmax.h: add non-atomic version of xchg

2023-01-05 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 09:38:12AM +, David Laight wrote: > From: Andrzej Hajda > > Sent: 09 December 2022 15:49 > > > > The pattern of setting variable with new value and returning old > > one is very common in kernel. Usually atomicity of the operation > > is not required, so xchg seems to

RE: [PATCH 1/5] linux/minmax.h: add non-atomic version of xchg

2022-12-12 Thread David Laight
From: Andrzej Hajda > Sent: 09 December 2022 15:49 > > The pattern of setting variable with new value and returning old > one is very common in kernel. Usually atomicity of the operation > is not required, so xchg seems to be suboptimal and confusing in > such cases. Since name xchg is already in

Re: [PATCH 1/5] linux/minmax.h: add non-atomic version of xchg

2022-12-09 Thread Andy Shevchenko
On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 08:56:28PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 04:48:39PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: ... > > I hope there will be place for such tiny helper in kernel. > > Quick cocci analyze shows there is probably few thousands places > > where it could be used, of

Re: [PATCH 1/5] linux/minmax.h: add non-atomic version of xchg

2022-12-09 Thread Andy Shevchenko
On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 04:48:39PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > The pattern of setting variable with new value and returning old > one is very common in kernel. Usually atomicity of the operation > is not required, so xchg seems to be suboptimal and confusing in > such cases. Since name xchg is al

Re: [PATCH 1/5] linux/minmax.h: add non-atomic version of xchg

2022-12-09 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022, at 16:48, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > The pattern of setting variable with new value and returning old > one is very common in kernel. Usually atomicity of the operation > is not required, so xchg seems to be suboptimal and confusing in > such cases. Since name xchg is already in us