On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 11:33:28PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 11:20:45PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > I'd say the sequence is:
> > > 1. create an linux/atomic.h the #include's asm/atomic.h
> > > 2. convert all asm/atomic.h to use linux/atomic.h
> > > 3. move common code to linux/atomic.h
> >
> > I don't think there is much common code actually. atomic_t
> > details vary widly between architectures. Just defining
> > a few macros to others is really not significant. I think
> > Christoph's original patch was just fine.
>
> All of Christoph's original patch contains common code.
>
> The amount of duplication his patch would create alone would IMHO be
> worth creating an linux/atomic.h.
There wasn't actually much code in there. And defining
asm-generic/atomic-long-on-32bit.h and asm-generic/atomic-long-on-64bit.h
like you essentially proposed would just obfuscate the code, not make it
easier to maintain.
Aiming for common code is ok, but only when it actually improves
maintainability.
-Andi
-
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]
