From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/atomic changes for v2.6.35 Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 08:01:35 -0700 Message-ID: <4BF3FD4F.1060108@zytor.com> References: <20100517224531.GA27400@elte.hu> <4BF3F480.3000902@zytor.com> <20100520003641.00618acb.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:48415 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752718Ab0ESPCd (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2010 11:02:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100520003641.00618acb.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Ingo Molnar , Luca Barbieri , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On 05/19/2010 07:36 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 19 May 2010 07:24:00 -0700 "H. Peter Anvin" wrote: >> >> On 05/19/2010 04:46 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> >>> It's a pity this wasn't raised/resolved between its detection in linux-next and >>> before it entered mainline... >>> >> >> 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. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.