On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > There's no need for an atomic op - at the most the architecture would need
> > local_irq_disable() protection, and that's only if it doesn't have an
> > atomic-wrt-this-cpu add instruction.
>
> So I can drop the VM_STATS() definitions?
I _think_ so. But a bit of a review of the existing atomic ops for the
major architectures wouldn't hurt.
> > > Right thought about that one as well. Can we stablize this first before I
> > > do another big reorg?
> >
> > That's unfortunate patch ordering. Do it (much) later I guess.
>
> Well there are a couple of trailing issues that would have to be resolved
> before that happens. I have another patchset here that does something more
> to the remaining counters.
It's a relatively minor issue - we can do this little cleanup much later on.
-
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]
