On 09/08/2014 10:52 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:41:52 -0700 > "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 09/05/2014 08:31 AM, Peter Hurley wrote: >>> >>> Which is a bit ironic because I remember when Digital had a team >>> working on emulating native x86 apps on Alpha/NT. >>> >> >> Right, because the x86 architecture was obsolete and would never scale... > > Talking about "not scaling" can anyone explain how a "you need to use > set_bit() and friends" bug report scaled into a hundred message plus > discussion about ambiguous properties of processors (and nobody has > audited all the embedded platforms we support yet, or the weirder ARMs) > and a propsal to remove Alpha support. > > Wouldn't it be *much* simpler to do what I suggested in the first place > and use the existing intended for purpose, deliberately put there, > functions for atomic bitops, because they are fast on sane processors and > they work on everything else. > > I think the whole "removing Alpha EV5" support is basically bonkers. Just > use set_bit in the tty layer. Alpha will continue to work as well as it > always has done and you won't design out support for any future processor > that turns out not to do byte aligned stores. > > Alan > Is *that* what we are talking about? I was added to this conversation in the middle where it had already generalized, so I had no idea. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
