Re: 2.6.18 Headers - Long

[Albert Cahalan]

On 7/16/06, Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2006, at 17:09:28, Albert Cahalan wrote:

> You realize that on a couple architectures it's fundamentally
> impossible to get atomic ops completely in userspace, right?

Sure. Those architectures don't need to drag down the rest.
Plenty of headers are only exported for some architectures.

(Well actually, such architectures could just give apps a
writable flag to disable the scheduler -- this is acceptable
for the embedded things these architectures are used for.
I've seen it done for user-space spinlocks. It works great.)

It's not as if the app developers would care to support
those architectures anyway. They don't even support all
the non-defective ones: I use the second or third most
popular architecture (ppc), and the app developers have
made it very clear that they don't give a damn. Something
else will get you: char being unsigned by default, wrong
endianness, stack growing the HP way, etc.
-
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/