Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH 2/2] Unify asm-x86/atomic.h

2008-08-25 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Jan Kiszka wrote: +#include asm/atomic.h + +#if BITS_PER_LONG != 32 +#error Upgrade to kernel 2.6! +#endif I am not well versed with the 2.4 support. But are we sure we support no 64 bits architecture with 2.4 ? What about ppc64 ? -- Gilles.

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH 2/2] Unify asm-x86/atomic.h

2008-08-25 Thread Jan Kiszka
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: +#include asm/atomic.h + +#if BITS_PER_LONG != 32 +#error Upgrade to kernel 2.6! +#endif I am not well versed with the 2.4 support. But are we sure we support no 64 bits architecture with 2.4 ? What about ppc64 ? AFAIK, only ppc32 is

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH 2/2] Unify asm-x86/atomic.h

2008-08-25 Thread Jan Kiszka
Jan Kiszka wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: ...and also automatically fixes the missing LOCK prefix for pthread_mutex_* services on x86_32 SMP. This looks to me as a half-way unification. Can we not totally get rid of

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH 2/2] Unify asm-x86/atomic.h

2008-08-25 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Jan Kiszka wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: +#include asm/atomic.h + +#if BITS_PER_LONG != 32 +#error Upgrade to kernel 2.6! +#endif I am not well versed with the 2.4 support. But are we sure we support no 64 bits architecture with 2.4 ? What about ppc64 ? AFAIK,

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH 2/2] Unify asm-x86/atomic.h

2008-08-25 Thread Philippe Gerum
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: +#include asm/atomic.h + +#if BITS_PER_LONG != 32 +#error Upgrade to kernel 2.6! +#endif I am not well versed with the 2.4 support. But are we sure we support no 64 bits architecture with 2.4 ? What about ppc64 ? No other 2.4 port will be

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH 2/2] Unify asm-x86/atomic.h

2008-08-25 Thread Jan Kiszka
Philippe Gerum wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: +#include asm/atomic.h + +#if BITS_PER_LONG != 32 +#error Upgrade to kernel 2.6! +#endif I am not well versed with the 2.4 support. But are we sure we support no 64 bits architecture with 2.4 ? What about ppc64 ? No

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH 2/2] Unify asm-x86/atomic.h

2008-08-23 Thread Jan Kiszka
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: ...and also automatically fixes the missing LOCK prefix for pthread_mutex_* services on x86_32 SMP. This looks to me as a half-way unification. Can we not totally get rid of atomic_32.h and atomic_64.h ? I mean since we are using unsigned long

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH 2/2] Unify asm-x86/atomic.h

2008-08-23 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Jan Kiszka wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: ...and also automatically fixes the missing LOCK prefix for pthread_mutex_* services on x86_32 SMP. This looks to me as a half-way unification. Can we not totally get rid of atomic_32.h and atomic_64.h ? I mean since we are

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH 2/2] Unify asm-x86/atomic.h

2008-08-23 Thread Jan Kiszka
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: ...and also automatically fixes the missing LOCK prefix for pthread_mutex_* services on x86_32 SMP. This looks to me as a half-way unification. Can we not totally get rid of atomic_32.h and

Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH 2/2] Unify asm-x86/atomic.h

2008-08-22 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Jan Kiszka wrote: ...and also automatically fixes the missing LOCK prefix for pthread_mutex_* services on x86_32 SMP. This looks to me as a half-way unification. Can we not totally get rid of atomic_32.h and atomic_64.h ? I mean since we are using unsigned long as atomic_t on both platforms,