Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759494AbZAHQ12 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:27:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753145AbZAHQ1V (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:27:21 -0500 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:44591 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751732AbZAHQ1U (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:27:20 -0500 To: Jiri Kosina Cc: Adam Osuchowski , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Nick Piggin Subject: Re: Is 386 processor still supported? From: Andi Kleen References: <20090108120338.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:27:30 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Jiri Kosina's message of "Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:05:48 +0100 (CET)") Message-ID: <87vdspwyod.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 951 Lines: 28 Jiri Kosina writes: > > From: Jiri Kosina > Subject: x86: make spinlocks available on machines without xadd insn > > Current kernel wouldn't compile on ancient x86 machines that don't support > xadd instruction, as ticket spinlocks implementation unconditionally uses > it. > > On machines without CONFIG_X86_XADD, use old-style byte spinlock > implementation instead. The assumption was always the 386s don't run SMP. So I think it would be better if you just made these xadds part of the UP patch implementation and patch them out on UP systems similar to how it's done for LOCK prefixes. That would help non 386 UP systems too. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- 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/