This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] Re: [patch 2/8] Implement always-locked bit ops, for memory

To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [patch 2/8] Implement always-locked bit ops, for memory shared with an SMP hypervisor.
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 08:02:44 +0200
Cc: akpm@xxxxxxxx, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ian Pratt <ian.pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:06:59 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608022252270.27488@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20060803002510.634721860@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200608030739.13334.ak@xxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608022252270.27488@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.3
On Thursday 03 August 2006 07:54, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > I still wonder why you are so focused on ifdefs. Why would we need those?
> > 
> > Because the Xen drivers will run on a couple of architectures, including
> > IA64 and PPC.
> > 
> > If IA64 or PPC didn't implement at least wrappers for the sync ops
> > then they would all need special ifdefs to handle this.
> No they would just need to do an #include <xen-bitops.h>

If IA64 and PPC64 wouldn't have xen-bitops.h (which you seem to argue 
for) then they would need ifdefs.

> > But you would still need to add that to IA64, PPC etc. too, so it 
> > would only avoid adding a single to the other architectures.
> Could we not just add one fallback definition to asm-generic?

You mean into asm-generic/bitops.h? Then it would need ifdefs
to handle the i386/x86-64 case.


Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>