Re: [RFC][PATCH 23/24] atomic: Collapse all atomic_{set,clear}_mask definitions

[Chris Metcalf]

On 7/10/2015 6:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:10:33AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > --- a/include/linux/atomic.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/atomic.h
> > > @@ -28,6 +28,23 @@ static inline int atomic_add_unless(atom
> > >   #define atomic_inc_not_zero(v)         atomic_add_unless((v), 1, 0)
> > >   #endif
> > >
> > > +#ifndef atomic_nand
> > > +static inline void atomic_nand(int i, atomic_t *v)
> > > +{
> > > +       atomic_and(~i, v);
> > That sounds like a misnomer...
> >
> > Your NAND is "A & ~B", while my[*] NAND is "~(A & B)"?
> >
> > [*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAND_logic
> Right you are.
>
> > What about atomic_clear()? (Is atomic_bic() too ARM-centric?)
> atomic_and_not() ?

I've seen this as ANDN (as opposed to NAND).  That's the name I used in
the tilepro atomics as the thing that implements the bitmask clear operation.
SPARC also has an "andn" instruction with this semantics.

--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/