From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263793AbUBHQac (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:30:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263805AbUBHQac (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:30:32 -0500 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([65.200.24.183]:45245 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263793AbUBHQab (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:30:31 -0500 Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 08:29:46 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Fab Tillier Cc: "Hefty, Sean" , Troy Benjegerdes , infiniband-general@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Infiniband-general] Getting an Infiniband access layer in theLinux kernel Message-ID: <20040208162946.GA2531@kroah.com> References: <20040206185132.GG32116@kroah.com> <08628CA53C6CBA4ABAFB9E808A5214CB017C1A10@mercury.infiniconsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <08628CA53C6CBA4ABAFB9E808A5214CB017C1A10@mercury.infiniconsys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 12:31:56AM -0800, Fab Tillier wrote: > > I think there is value in allowing the code to be shared between > kernel mode and user mode. Would using a macro that resolve to the > native kernel spin lock structure and functions be acceptable? Probably not, just use the in-kernel call, and be done with it. If you _really_ want to share code between userspace and the kernel, keep a different version of it somewhere else. Why do you want to run your code in both places? Does this mean that it doesn't even really need to be in the kernel as it works just fine in userspace? thanks, greg k-h