Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269121AbUINCTn (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:19:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269119AbUINCRX (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:17:23 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([207.189.100.168]:58511 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269117AbUINCHa (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:07:30 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:06:14 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Alex Zarochentsev Cc: Hugh Dickins , Roman Zippel , Paul Jackson , Hans Reiser , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Martin Schwidefsky Subject: Re: 2.6.9-rc1-mm4 sparc reiser4 build broken - undefined atomic_sub_and_test Message-ID: <20040914020614.GI9106@holomorphy.com> References: <20040913171936.GC2252@backtop.namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040913171936.GC2252@backtop.namesys.com> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1412 Lines: 28 On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 03:58:37PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: >> sparc and s390 are not the only arches lacking atomic_sub_and_test. >> Go ahead and send the patches changing all the arches that have it to >> define __ARCH_HAS_ATOMIC_SUB_AND_TEST, and add asm-generic/atomic.h >> for those that don't etc; but to me that seems like a waste of time - >> unless Zam convinces us that Reiser4 will need every last ounce of On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 09:19:36PM +0400, Alex Zarochentsev wrote: > I do not, Hans will ;-) > I just like to know what atomic.h common functions would be in 2.6.9+, > because nowdays the API is not consisent accross the arches. > atomic_sub_return() is OK. sparc32 is very legacy; in a quick IRC poll of sparc32 users there was approximately zero interest in new filesystems and most users used nfs and/or ext[23]. One should note that as these cpus are very slow and the systems have very little RAM compared to modern ones, kernel memory footprint and the cpu complexity of fs operations for small fs's is of high importance. I really don't expect reiser4 to ever be runtime tested on sparc32. UltraSPARC is another matter entirely. -- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/