Re: [GIT PULL] x86/atomic changes for v2.6.35

From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Wed May 19 2010 - 11:02:38 EST

On 05/19/2010 07:36 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi,
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 07:24:00 -0700 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 05/19/2010 04:46 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> <boilerplate>
>>> It's a pity this wasn't raised/resolved between its detection in linux-next and
>>> before it entered mainline...
>>> </boilerplate>
>> As far as your boilerplate is concerned, I think Linus made it clear at
>> the Kernel Summit that is it not the obligation of x86/ARM/PowerPC to
>> slow down to not break the smaller architectures; it's the
>> responsibility of those architecture maintainers to keep up. Sorry.
> I don't think this reply has anything to do with the sentiments expr
> by Geert above. My interpretation of his comments is just that it is a
> pity noone noticed the problem while it was only in linux-next and
> reported it widely (like on linux-arch) so something could have been done
> before it all Linus' tree. There was no suggestion of slowing the pace
> of development.

It was discussed on linux-kernel -- note that there is no breakage for
smaller architectures unless you enable the test directly or via randconfig.

The other part is that generic atomic64_t has been available since
middle of 2009, and was *also* discussed extensively on linux-kernel --
in fact, several of the smaller architectures added support at that
time. That the breakage occurred because of an inconsequential test
rather than real code is thus really nothing but fortunate.


H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at