From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.26-rc1 (cmpxchg vs 80386 build) Date: 29 Mar 2004 17:07:42 -0500 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <1080598062.983.3.camel@dhcppc4> References: <1080535754.16221.188.camel@dhcppc4> <20040329052238.GD1276@alpha.home.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040329052238.GD1276-HkMpAodKYdnXX8ko2wsARw@public.gmane.org> Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Willy Tarreau Cc: Arkadiusz Miskiewicz , Marcelo Tosatti , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, ACPI Developers List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 00:22, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > 4. re-implement locks for the 80386 case. > > I like this one, but a simpler way : don't support SMP in this case, so that > we won't have to play with locks. This would lead to something like this : Linux uses this locking mechanism to coordinate shared access to hardware registers with embedded controllers, which is true also on uniprocessors too. thanks, -Len ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263150AbUC2WIe (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:08:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263159AbUC2WIe (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:08:34 -0500 Received: from fmr06.intel.com ([134.134.136.7]:12260 "EHLO caduceus.jf.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263150AbUC2WIc (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:08:32 -0500 Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.26-rc1 (cmpxchg vs 80386 build) From: Len Brown To: Willy Tarreau Cc: Arkadiusz Miskiewicz , Marcelo Tosatti , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ACPI Developers In-Reply-To: <20040329052238.GD1276@alpha.home.local> References: <1080535754.16221.188.camel@dhcppc4> <20040329052238.GD1276@alpha.home.local> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1080598062.983.3.camel@dhcppc4> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.3 Date: 29 Mar 2004 17:07:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 00:22, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > 4. re-implement locks for the 80386 case. > > I like this one, but a simpler way : don't support SMP in this case, so that > we won't have to play with locks. This would lead to something like this : Linux uses this locking mechanism to coordinate shared access to hardware registers with embedded controllers, which is true also on uniprocessors too. thanks, -Len