Re: [RFC][PATCH]: documentation,atomic: Add a new atomic_t document

[Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1266 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 04:49:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
> -Any atomic operation that modifies some state in memory and returns information
> -about the state (old or new) implies an SMP-conditional general memory barrier
> -(smp_mb()) on each side of the actual operation (with the exception of
> -explicit lock operations, described later).  These include:
> -
> -	xchg();
> -	atomic_xchg();			atomic_long_xchg();
> -	atomic_inc_return();		atomic_long_inc_return();
> -	atomic_dec_return();		atomic_long_dec_return();
> -	atomic_add_return();		atomic_long_add_return();
> -	atomic_sub_return();		atomic_long_sub_return();
> -	atomic_inc_and_test();		atomic_long_inc_and_test();
> -	atomic_dec_and_test();		atomic_long_dec_and_test();
> -	atomic_sub_and_test();		atomic_long_sub_and_test();
> -	atomic_add_negative();		atomic_long_add_negative();
> -	test_and_set_bit();
> -	test_and_clear_bit();
> -	test_and_change_bit();
> -

The bit related operations are removed from memory-barriers.txt, I think
we'd better add them in atomic_t.txt? By "them", I mean:

	test_and_{set,clear,change}_bit() as RMW atomic

	{set,clear,change}_bit() as non-RMW atomic

	test_and_set_bit_lock()
	clear_bit_unlock() as non-RMW(but barrier-like) atomic

Regards,
Boqun

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]