From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762368AbZATQP0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:15:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755870AbZATQPP (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:15:15 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:47838 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753334AbZATQPN (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:15:13 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:14:51 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jiri Kosina Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: remove byte locks Message-ID: <20090120161451.GB4168@elte.hu> References: <20090112120743.GC24266@elte.hu> <20090112124401.GA31939@elte.hu> <496D1F54.7070104@goop.org> <496D292B.20007@goop.org> <20090115105808.GA16253@elte.hu> 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: > On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > Why can't this just be somewhere in documentation? (possibly even with > > > > > the byte locks code as a reference). > > > > Because Ingo's compil-o-matic will never fail on a documentation error. > > > > > > Hmm, I have always considered the "we don't accept any code that would > > > have zero in-kernel users" rule as a quite reasonable one, at least in > > > order to prevent from bloat and code getting confusing. > > > But apparently it's not the intention here. > > > > > > > > It is IMHO just totally confusing to have a spinlock implementation that is > > > > > not used at all in the tree. It took me quite some time to go through this > > > > > until I finally figured out that this code is actually never used. > > > > > Currently, on first sight it might seem that byte locks are used whenever > > > > > CONFIG_PARAVIRT is set, which is not true. > > > > Well, a comment next to the code explaining the rationale probably > > > > wouldn't go astray. > > > > > > I still strongly feel that if the only purpose of the code in kernel is > > > "to provide example", then it belongs to documentation. > > > > > > > > And apparently even Linus got confused by this, which also tells us > > > > > something by itself, see [1]. > > > > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123144211719754&w=2 > > > > It tells us that Linus couldn't give a rat's arse about virtualization, > > > > which is just something we have to cope with ;) > > > > > > I am afraid this has nothing to do with virtualization. It's simply > > > confusing when looking at the code. > > > > i'd tend to agree, that area of code is quite complex already. > > ping, any final word here? Should I consider the silence a implicit nak, > or should I resend the patch? ok - i've applied it to tip/x86/cleanups. Ingo