[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608022125320.26980@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 21:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
cc: virtualization@...ts.osdl.org,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, akpm@...l.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Ian Pratt <ian.pratt@...source.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/8] Implement always-locked bit ops, for memory shared
with an SMP hypervisor.
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?
Those operations are only needed for special xen driver and not for
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 <asm/xen-bitops.h>
for those special xen drivers.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists