[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200608030802.44391.ak@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 08:02:44 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
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 Thursday 03 August 2006 07:54, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > > I still wonder why you are so focused on ifdefs. Why would we need those?
> >
> > Because the Xen drivers will run on a couple of architectures, including
> > IA64 and PPC.
> >
> > If IA64 or PPC didn't implement at least wrappers for the sync ops
> > then they would all need special ifdefs to handle this.
>
> No they would just need to do an #include <xen-bitops.h>
If IA64 and PPC64 wouldn't have xen-bitops.h (which you seem to argue
for) then they would need ifdefs.
> > But you would still need to add that to IA64, PPC etc. too, so it
> > would only avoid adding a single to the other architectures.
>
> Could we not just add one fallback definition to asm-generic?
You mean into asm-generic/bitops.h? Then it would need ifdefs
to handle the i386/x86-64 case.
-Andi
-
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