Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:52:11 -0800 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |