Re: [PATCH] x86: remove byte locks

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jiri Kosina <jkosina@xxxxxxx> 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 ?

But i guess we should solve M386 and M486 by only allowing it on !SMP, 
hence spinlock support is moot there, right?

	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/