From a364a3a7090b82ddd30e9209df2af56e781d51e4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wilco Dijkstra Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 14:22:26 +0100 Subject: Use C11 atomics instead of atomic_decrement(_val) Replace atomic_decrement and atomic_decrement_val with atomic_fetch_add_relaxed. Reviewed-by: DJ Delorie --- manual/ipc.texi | 2 +- manual/llio.texi | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'manual') diff --git a/manual/ipc.texi b/manual/ipc.texi index 081b98fe29..46c049c3da 100644 --- a/manual/ipc.texi +++ b/manual/ipc.texi @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ by @theglibc{}. @c @c Given the use atomic operations this function seems @c to be AS-safe. It is AC-unsafe because there is still -@c a window between atomic_decrement and the pthread_push +@c a window between atomic_fetch_add_relaxed and the pthread_push @c of the handler that undoes that operation. A cancellation @c at that point would fail to remove the process from the @c waiters count. diff --git a/manual/llio.texi b/manual/llio.texi index e55b02d8bd..0dfcdad434 100644 --- a/manual/llio.texi +++ b/manual/llio.texi @@ -2569,7 +2569,7 @@ aiocb64}, since the LFS transparently replaces the old interface. @c lll_lock (pd->lock) @asulock @aculock @c atomic_increment ok @c clone ok -@c atomic_decrement ok +@c atomic_fetch_add_relaxed ok @c atomic_exchange_acq ok @c lll_futex_wake ok @c deallocate_stack dup -- cgit 1.4.1