[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <496D292B.20007@goop.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:52:11 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...source.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: remove byte locks
Jiri Kosina wrote:
> Why can't this just be somewhere in documentation? (possibly even with the
> byte locks code as a reference).
>
Because Ingo's compil-o-matic will never fail on a documentation error.
> It is IMHO just totally confusing to have a spinlock implementation that
> is not used at all in the tree. It took me quite some time to go through
> this until I finally figured out that this code is actually never used.
> Currently, on first sight it might seem that byte locks are used whenever
> CONFIG_PARAVIRT is set, which is not true.
>
Well, a comment next to the code explaining the rationale probably
wouldn't go astray.
> And apparently even Linus got confused by this, which also tells us
> something by itself, see [1].
>
> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123144211719754&w=2
>
It tells us that Linus couldn't give a rat's arse about virtualization,
which is just something we have to cope with ;)
J
--
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