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

Re: [Xen-devel] My turn to rant about types... bitops

Always the job of the maintainer to ask why :)
Well, since linux bitops use unsigned long, being the largest machine word and therefore the most efficient, we get alignment issues.

The next request is really the jist of what we are after, doing 64bit operations 32bit aligned data kills us performance wise and WRT bitops cannot be used for atomic ops. If htis was just Xen I'd consider adding 32bit bitops but I doubt I'd be able to do that in Linux which does not provide "u32" bitops.

IIRC assuring this alignement would even help x86, no?
-JX

On Oct 5, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Keir Fraser wrote:



On 5 Oct 2005, at 17:52, Jimi Xenidis wrote:



I think around linux-2.4.19 (and thanks to rusty?) bitops.h went s/ void */unsigned long */, any chance is Xen following suit? The next request would be to change all arrays destined for bitops to be defined using unsigned long.
specifically:



Just cast to 'unsigned long *' when you use those ops. Why work around details of the way that Linux happens to do atomic ops in our interfaces?

 -- Keir





-JX
--
"I got an idea, an idea so smart my head would explode if I even
began to know what I was talking about." -- Peter Griffin (Family Guy)





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