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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 21:01:07 EST