[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608022213530.26980@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 22:19:38 -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:
> > Those operations are only needed for special xen driver and not for
> > regular kernel code!
>
> The Xen driver will be "regular" kernel code.
As far as I can tell from this conversation there are special "Xen"
drivers that need this not the rest of the system.
> > 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.
What possible use could there be to someone else?
The "atomic" ops lock/unlock crap exists only for i386 as far as I can
tell. As you said most architectures either always use atomic ops or
never. The lock/unlock atomic ops are i386 specific material that
better stay contained. Its arch specific and not generic.
-
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