Re: [PATCH] x86: remove byte locks

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

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
--
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/