WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

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

To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [patch 2/8] Implement always-locked bit ops, for memory shared with an SMP hypervisor.
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 22:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
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: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:21:23 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200608030649.11452.ak@xxxxxxx>
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> <200608030445.38189.ak@xxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608022125320.26980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200608030649.11452.ak@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:

> > Those operations are only needed for special xen driver and not for 
> > regular kernel code!
> 
> The Xen driver will be "regular" kernel code.

As far as I can tell from this conversation there are special "Xen" 
drivers that need this not the rest of the system.

> > 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.

What possible use could there be to someone else?

The "atomic" ops lock/unlock crap exists only for i386 as far as I can 
tell. As you said most architectures either always use atomic ops or 
never. The lock/unlock atomic ops are i386 specific material that 
better stay contained. Its arch specific and not generic.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

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