From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 2/2] s390 virtualization interface. Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 09:25:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20070502082533.GA23674@infradead.org> References: <1177681235.5770.22.camel@cotte.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <200704271853.41523.arnd@arndb.de> <20070429080039.GA8332@osiris.ibm.com> <200705012312.11692.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, cborntra-tA70FqPdS9bQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, schwidefsky-tA70FqPdS9bQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org To: Arnd Bergmann Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200705012312.11692.arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 11:12:11PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Not sure about that point. If you need to do atomic operations on the > first 32 bits, you shouldn't need to invent your own abstractions for > those, and it's highly unlikely that the implementation of atomic_t changes. I disagree. Using an atomic_t in a hardware structure is against all the abstractions we've built. It's much better to have separate macros to atomically modify a word in this hardware strcuture, even if they end up exactly the same as the atomic_ macros - at least this way we clearly document their intent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/