On Thursday 03 August 2006 06:27, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > Thats a good goal but what about the rest of us who have to maintain > > > additional forms of bit operations for all architectures. How much is this > > > burden? > > > > I don't think it's that big an issue because most architectures either > > use always locked bitops already or don't need them because they don't do > > SMP. > > Those architectures that always use locked bitops or dont need them would > not need to be modified if we put this in a special fail. I think this is > a i386 speciality here? i386/x86-64 They could do a single line #include for asm-generic that defines them to the normal bitops. > > Those operations are only needed for special xen driver and not for > regular kernel code! The Xen driver will be "regular" kernel code. > > So it will be fine with just a asm-generic header that defines them > > to the normal bitops. Not much burden. > > asm-generic/xen-bitops.h asm-i386/xen-bitops.h is even less of a burden > and would only require a > > #include <asm/xen-bitops.h> > > for those special xen drivers. Well there might be reasons someone else uses this in the future too. It's also not exactly Linux style - normally we try to add generic facilities. -Andi
