From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754892AbZALMIL (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 07:08:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754746AbZALMHs (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 07:07:48 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:53455 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754733AbZALMHr (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 07:07:47 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:07:43 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jiri Kosina Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: remove byte locks Message-ID: <20090112120743.GC24266@elte.hu> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jiri Kosina wrote: > Remove byte locks implementation, which was introduced by Jeremy in > 8efcbab6 ("paravirt: introduce a "lock-byte" spinlock implementation"), > but turned out to be dead code that is not used by any in-kernel > virtualization guest (Xen uses its own variant of spinlocks implementation > and KVM is not planning to move to byte locks). > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h | 2 - > arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h | 66 +-------------------------------- > arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c | 10 ----- > 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-) didnt you send a patch in this lkml thread: Subject: Re: Is 386 processor still supported? that makes use of byte-locks on i386 ? But i guess we should solve M386 and M486 by only allowing it on !SMP, hence spinlock support is moot there, right? Ingo