Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:53:26 -0800 | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: [Infiniband-general] Getting an Infiniband access layer in the Linux kernel |
| |
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:31:45 -0500 "Tillier, Fabian" <ftillier@infiniconsys.com> wrote:
| Greg, | | The atomic operation abstraction is there because atomic support has | different prototypes between x86 and IA64 (at least it did when it was | written), with some of the x86 functions not returning values while the | IA64 ones did. Further, comments in the x86 code base indicated that | only 24-bits are actually valid (probably from some i386 limitation that | is no longer relevant). Thus, the implementation of atomic operations | for the x86 processor architecture fails a build (via #error) if you're | targeting an i386 processor, and provides the same semantics independent | of processor architecture. | | To answer your broader question, the reason to have abstraction is to | facilitate portability. I'm not just talking about portability between | different operating systems, but even portability between different | versions of Linux distributions and kernels. Differences between Linux | distributions and kernel versions can be handled in a single place, | avoiding the need to pepper the rest of the code base with #ifdefs. | This results in more readable and maintainable code for the rest of the | project by concentrating platform specific issues to the abstraction | layer.
Besides Greg's comments:
Can (will) you provide specific examples of these differences/problems? They need to be quashed.
Thanks.
| Are you suggesting that if there is any abstraction, the code will never | be accepted? Or rather that the abstraction better be correct? I'm | hoping for the latter, however please clarify. | | - Fab | | -----Original Message----- | From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@kroah.com] | Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 10:10 AM | To: Hefty, Sean; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org | Cc: Troy Benjegerdes; Woodruff, Robert J; Magro, Bill; Woodruff, Robert | J; infiniband-general@lists.sourceforge.net | Subject: Re: [Infiniband-general] Getting an Infiniband access layer in | the linux kernel | | On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 10:01:13AM -0800, Hefty, Sean wrote: | > As an FYI, the code is available for download on bitkeeper at | > http://infiniband.bkbits.net/iba. We're still working on providing a | > tarball and patch for 2.6, but if you would like to see the code now, | it | > is available. | | Oh, I've seen that code, and still feel ill after looking at some of | it... | | Come on, implementing your own spinlocks (and getting it wrong) and | atomit_t? Why in the world would you _ever_ want to do that. | | That code needs a _lot_ of cleanup to make it into the kernel tree. | | Good luck, | | greg k-h
-- ~Randy kernel-janitors project: http://janitor.kernelnewbies.org/ - 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/
| |