[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BF3F480.3000902@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 07:24:00 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Luca Barbieri <luca@...a-barbieri.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/atomic changes for v2.6.35
On 05/19/2010 04:46 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 00:45, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>> Please pull the latest x86-atomic-for-linus git tree from:
>>
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git x86-atomic-for-linus
>>
>>
>> out-of-topic modifications in x86-atomic-for-linus:
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> lib/Makefile # 86a8938: lib: Add self-test for atomic64_t
>> lib/atomic64.c # 9757789: lib: Fix atomic64_add_unless retu
>> lib/atomic64_test.c # a5c9161: x86, atomic64: In selftest, disti
>> # 25a304f: lib: Fix atomic64_inc_not_zero te
>> # 9efbcd5: lib: Fix atomic64_add_unless test
>> # d7f6de1: x86: Implement atomic[64]_dec_if_
>> # 8f4f202: lib: Only test atomic64_dec_if_po
>> # 86a8938: lib: Add self-test for atomic64_t
>
> Is having atomic64_t mandatory now?
>
> According to the allmodconfig build logs
> (http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/matrix/),
> several architectures (at least m68k and mips) don't have it.
> Furthermore, the test fails to compile on a few architectures that do have it
> (parisc, s390, sh, ...).
>
> <boilerplate>
> It's a pity this wasn't raised/resolved between its detection in linux-next and
> before it entered mainline...
> </boilerplate>
>
Is having atomic64_t mandatory? Not yet, I don't think, but it probably
will be soon -- which is why there is a generic implementation
available. All those architectures just need to select
CONFIG_GENERIC_ATOMIC64 and voilĂ , problem solved.
As far as your boilerplate is concerned, I think Linus made it clear at
the Kernel Summit that is it not the obligation of x86/ARM/PowerPC to
slow down to not break the smaller architectures; it's the
responsibility of those architecture maintainers to keep up. Sorry.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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