[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.1.10.0901121334510.5377@jikos.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:36:19 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...source.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: remove byte locks
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Remove byte locks implementation, which was introduced by Jeremy in
> > 8efcbab6 ("paravirt: introduce a "lock-byte" spinlock implementation"),
> > but turned out to be dead code that is not used by any in-kernel
> > virtualization guest (Xen uses its own variant of spinlocks implementation
> > and KVM is not planning to move to byte locks).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h | 2 -
> > arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h | 66 +--------------------------------
> > arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c | 10 -----
> > 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)
> didnt you send a patch in this lkml thread:
>
> Subject: Re: Is 386 processor still supported?
> that makes use of byte-locks on i386 ?
I did, but that patch was bogus, as we indeed don't support smp on M386.
This is totally independent -- it just removes dead code (byte locks) that
has no in-tree user at all.
> But i guess we should solve M386 and M486 by only allowing it on !SMP,
> hence spinlock support is moot there, right?
Agreed. But that's a different issue.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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