All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
	Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com>,
	davidm@hpl.hp.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>,
	anton@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] move task_struct allocation to arch
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:07:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <23760.1013782075@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Message from Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>  of "Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:49:23 +0100." <Pine.LNX.4.33.0202151439160.1001-100000@serv>


Hi Linus,

Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> As I mentioned before I more like the byte approach, since atomic bit
> field handling is quite expensive on most architectures, where a simple
> set/clear byte is only one or two instructions, if there is byte
> load/store instruction. So I'd really like to see to leave the decision to
> the architecture, whether to use bit or byte fields.

Should I move the convenience bit operations back to the arch header, so that
the M68K guys can have byte-sized flags (which they can use TAS/TST on)?

David

  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-02-15 14:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-02-14 15:26 [PATCH] move task_struct allocation to arch David Howells
2002-02-14 16:13 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-14 16:32   ` David Howells
2002-02-14 16:46     ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-14 17:03       ` David Howells
2002-02-14 20:48         ` Roman Zippel
2002-02-14 23:53         ` Richard Henderson
2002-02-15  9:56         ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-15 10:01           ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-15 11:25           ` Roman Zippel
2002-02-15 11:37             ` David Howells
2002-02-15 12:20               ` Roman Zippel
2002-02-15 12:56                 ` David Howells
2002-02-15 13:49                   ` Roman Zippel
2002-02-15 13:51                     ` Jeff Garzik
2002-02-15 14:22                       ` Roman Zippel
2002-02-15 14:07                     ` David Howells [this message]
2002-02-15 14:28                       ` Roman Zippel
2002-02-15 21:56                       ` Richard Henderson
2002-02-15 21:52                   ` Richard Henderson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=23760.1013782075@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com \
    --to=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=anton@samba.org \
    --cc=davem@redhat.com \
    --cc=davidm@hpl.hp.com \
    --cc=jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
    --cc=zippel@linux-m68k.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.