lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: remove byte locks
Jiri Kosina wrote:
> Why can't this just be somewhere in documentation? (possibly even with the
> byte locks code as a reference).
>

Because Ingo's compil-o-matic will never fail on a documentation error.

> It is IMHO just totally confusing to have a spinlock implementation that
> is not used at all in the tree. It took me quite some time to go through
> this until I finally figured out that this code is actually never used.
> Currently, on first sight it might seem that byte locks are used whenever
> CONFIG_PARAVIRT is set, which is not true.
>

Well, a comment next to the code explaining the rationale probably
wouldn't go astray.

> And apparently even Linus got confused by this, which also tells us
> something by itself, see [1].
>
> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123144211719754&w=2
>

It tells us that Linus couldn't give a rat's arse about virtualization,
which is just something we have to cope with ;)

J


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-14 00:55    [W:0.050 / U:0.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site