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>
> > Maybe the best thing would be to have proper atomic ops in UP mode on
> > i386? The current way of just dropping the lock bit is the source of the
> > troubles.
>
> It's a huge performance difference.
I understand but why dont we use regular ops explicitly
instead of hacking the atomic ops. Then we would not have unhack them now.
> > Just adding a single line #include <asm/xen-bitops.h> to drivers that need
> > this functionality is not an undue burden for the drivers that support
> > Xen. They have to use special _xxx bitops anyways.
>
> Ok it could be put into a separate file (although with a neutral name)
>
> 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?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
