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
next prev 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox