On Tuesday 08 February 2011, Dave Martin wrote: > I have a (possibly silly) question ... are the definitions in > arm/system.h intended to be fully generic, or not? Some features > suggest an attempt at genericness, but not everything there is > generic. Maybe I have misconstrued the purpose of this header. asm/system.h contains an ill-defined set of random stuff derived from what used to be in there in the old days Linux-1.x and whatever the individual architectures added to it. There have been previous attempts to reduce the common stuff and leave only architecture-specific definitions in there, but it still contains for all architectures at least: * switch_to() * mb() and friends * cmpxchg() and friends These are hard to change, because each architecture has slightly different rules for recursive header file inclusion, so you end up breaking stuff when you touch them. The other declarations and macros are arch specific, so we could move them to a different place or change them if there is a good reason to do that. I personally think it would be good to have at least cmpxchg and everything related to it in a separate header, like a few architectures do (x86, sh, alpha, mips), but I don't see too much value in doing that just on ARM while leaving the other architectures alone. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
