Re: [Xen-merge] Re: synch_bitops.h

[Jimi Xenidis <jimix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So AFAIK synch_bitops.h is equivilent to bitops.h with #defined  
CONFIG_SMP
Can't we use this somehow to reduce the amount of repeated code?

On Jan 6, 2006, at 9:05 AM, Christian Limpach wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 12:28:33PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > I realize that it was your preference to not split the i386 and  
> > x86-64
> > variants, as I had suggested with my patch. However, in course of
> > undoing that patch the bug fixes got dropped, too. Was that
> > intentional?
> I dropped the changes where instead of using =m, you suggested  
> using +m.
> The original Linux' bitops.h uses =m and using +m doesn't really make
> a difference in this case.
>
>     christian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-merge mailing list
> Xen-merge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-merge
-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-merge mailing list
Xen-merge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-merge