On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 08:54:03PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> writes: > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:26:37AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:43:35PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > >> > /** > >> > + * atomic64_add_unless - add unless the number is already a given value > >> > + * @v: pointer of type atomic_t > >> > + * @a: the amount to add to v... > >> > + * @u: ...unless v is equal to u. > >> > + * > >> > + * Atomically adds @a to @v, so long as @v was not already @u. > >> > + * Returns non-zero if @v was not @u, and zero otherwise. > >> > >> I always get confused by that wording; would something like: "Returns > >> true if the addition was done" not be more clear? > > > > Sounds clearer to me; I just stole the wording from the existing > > atomic_add_unless(). > > > > I guess you'll want similar for the conditional inc/dec ops, e.g. > > > > /** > > * atomic_inc_not_zero - increment unless the number is zero > > * @v: pointer of type atomic_t > > * > > * Atomically increments @v by 1, so long as @v is non-zero. > > * Returns non-zero if @v was non-zero, and zero otherwise. > > */ > > If we're bike-shedding .. :) > > I think "so long as" is overly wordy and not helpful. It'd be clearer > just as: > > * Atomically increments @v by 1, if @v is non-zero.
I agree; done. Mark.
