Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 20 Jul 2002 18:31:33 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: [PATCH] generalized spin_lock_bit | From | "David S. Miller" <> |
| |
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Date: 21 Jul 2002 01:26:25 +0100
Secondly many platforms want to implement their locks in other ways. Atomic bitops are an x86 luxury so your proposal simply generates hideously inefficient code compared to arch specific sanity
For an asm-generic/bitlock.h implementation it is more than fine. That way we get asm-i386/bitlock.h that does whatever it wants to do and the rest of asm-*/bitlock.h includes the generic version until the arch maintainer sees fit to do otherwise.
See the difference between what we have here now? It means all ports will at least sort-of work when the change gets installed. A lot of testing gets lost because ports break on a daily basis due to changes when done like this.
Look at the asm/rmap.h stuff, that was done right and platforms kept at least compiling when that change went in.
I don't mind architecture breakage when truly necessary to change stuff, but when it can be avoided reasonably it should. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |