Hi Stefano, On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 04:27:55PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Will Deacon wrote: > > Ok, thanks for the explanation. Looking at the patch, I wonder whether it's > > not cleaner just to implement xchg code separately for Xen? The Linux code > > isn't always sufficient (due to the GENERIC_ATOMIC64 stuff) and most of the > > churn coming out of this patch is an attempt to provide some small code > > reuse at the cost of code readability. > > > > What do others think? > > I am OK with that, in fact my first version of the patch did just that: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=138436406724990&w=2 > > Is that what you had in mind?
For the xchg part, yes, that looks a lot better. I don't like the #undef CONFIG_CPU_V6 though, can that be rewritten to use __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__? Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
