Subject: Re: [RFC 2/5] atomics: introduce arch_atomic_op_{acquire,release,fence} helpers

From: Peter Zijlstra <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:36:14 +0200

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:48:16AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Some architectures may have their special barriers for acquire, release
> and fence semantics, general memory barriers(smp_mb__*_atomic()) in
> __atomic_op_*() may be too strong, so arch_atomic_op_*() helpers are
> introduced for architectures to provide their own version helpers to
> build different variants based on _relaxed variants.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <[email-masked]>
> ---
>  include/linux/atomic.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/atomic.h b/include/linux/atomic.h
> index 00a5763..622255b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/atomic.h
> +++ b/include/linux/atomic.h
> @@ -34,20 +34,33 @@
>   * The idea here is to build acquire/release variants by adding explicit
>   * barriers on top of the relaxed variant. In the case where the relaxed
>   * variant is already fully ordered, no additional barriers are needed.
> + *
> + * Besides, if an arch has a special barrier for acquire/release, it could
> + * implement its own arch_atomic_op_* and use the same framework for building
> + * variants
>   */
> +#ifndef arch_atomic_op_acquire
>  #define __atomic_op_acquire(op, args...)				\
>  ({									\
>  	typeof(op##_relaxed(args)) __ret  = op##_relaxed(args);		\
>  	smp_mb__after_atomic();						\
>  	__ret;								\
>  })
> +#else
> +#define __atomic_op_acquire arch_atomic_op_acquire
> +#endif

Not really a fan of this, its not consistent with the existing #ifndef
guard style.