Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:08:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:08:07 -0500 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237]:22774 "HELO executor.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:07:57 -0500 To: Linus Torvalds , Roman Zippel Cc: David Howells , Jeff Garzik , davidm@hpl.hp.com, "David S. Miller" , anton@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] move task_struct allocation to arch In-Reply-To: Message from Roman Zippel of "Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:49:23 +0100." User-Agent: EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Unebigory=F2mae?=) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.1 (i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:07:55 +0000 Message-ID: <23760.1013782075@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> From: David Howells Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Linus, Roman Zippel wrote: > As I mentioned before I more like the byte approach, since atomic bit > field handling is quite expensive on most architectures, where a simple > set/clear byte is only one or two instructions, if there is byte > load/store instruction. So I'd really like to see to leave the decision to > the architecture, whether to use bit or byte fields. Should I move the convenience bit operations back to the arch header, so that the M68K guys can have byte-sized flags (which they can use TAS/TST on)? David - 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/