On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 03:24:10PM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 09/08/2016 12:29 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> > One thing I'm not sure of is the lack of explicit memory clobber in
> > barrier-less ops e.g. atomic64_add() (BTW same is true for 32-bit
> > atomic_add() as well). Per commit 398aa66827
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 09:38:25AM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 09/06/2016 11:28 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 01:28:45PM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> >> On 09/06/2016 01:22 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> Not "we need to support gcc6 for
> old kernels", as really
On 09/09/2016 04:39 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 09:38:25AM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> On 09/06/2016 11:28 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 01:28:45PM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 09/06/2016 01:22 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> Not "we ne
ARCv2 ISA provides 64-bit exclusive load/stores so use them to implement
the 64-bit atomics and elide the spinlock based generic 64-bit atomics
boot tested with atomic64 self-test (and GOD bless the person who wrote
them, I realized my inline assmebly is sloppy as hell)
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Wi
