Re: [PATCH] x86: remove byte locks

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jiri Kosina <jkosina@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > > Remove byte locks implementation, which was introduced by Jeremy in 
> > > 8efcbab6 ("paravirt: introduce a "lock-byte" spinlock implementation"), 
> > > but turned out to be dead code that is not used by any in-kernel 
> > > virtualization guest (Xen uses its own variant of spinlocks implementation 
> > > and KVM is not planning to move to byte locks).
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h      |    2 -
> > >  arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h      |   66 +--------------------------------
> > >  arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c |   10 -----
> > >  3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)
> > didnt you send a patch in this lkml thread:
> > 
> >   Subject: Re: Is 386 processor still supported?
> 
> > that makes use of byte-locks on i386 ?
> 
> I did, but that patch was bogus, as we indeed don't support smp on M386.
> 
> This is totally independent -- it just removes dead code (byte locks) that 
> has no in-tree user at all.
> 
> > But i guess we should solve M386 and M486 by only allowing it on !SMP, 
> > hence spinlock support is moot there, right?
> 
> Agreed. But that's a different issue.

ok. Jeremy, can we apply Jiri's patch or do you still have plans with that 
code?

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/