Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932260AbWHCEta (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 00:49:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932255AbWHCEta (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 00:49:30 -0400 Received: from ns2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:467 "EHLO mx2.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932265AbWHCEt3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 00:49:29 -0400 From: Andi Kleen To: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 2/8] Implement always-locked bit ops, for memory shared with an SMP hypervisor. Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 06:49:11 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Jeremy Fitzhardinge , akpm@osdl.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Chris Wright , Ian Pratt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20060803002510.634721860@xensource.com> <200608030445.38189.ak@suse.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200608030649.11452.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1574 Lines: 48 On Thursday 03 August 2006 06:27, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > Thats a good goal but what about the rest of us who have to maintain > > > additional forms of bit operations for all architectures. How much is this > > > burden? > > > > I don't think it's that big an issue because most architectures either > > use always locked bitops already or don't need them because they don't do > > SMP. > > Those architectures that always use locked bitops or dont need them would > not need to be modified if we put this in a special fail. I think this is > a i386 speciality here? i386/x86-64 They could do a single line #include for asm-generic that defines them to the normal bitops. > > Those operations are only needed for special xen driver and not for > regular kernel code! The Xen driver will be "regular" kernel code. > > So it will be fine with just a asm-generic header that defines them > > to the normal bitops. Not much burden. > > asm-generic/xen-bitops.h asm-i386/xen-bitops.h is even less of a burden > and would only require a > > #include > > for those special xen drivers. Well there might be reasons someone else uses this in the future too. It's also not exactly Linux style - normally we try to add generic facilities. -Andi - 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/