Re: [Xen-merge] Re: synch_bitops.h

[Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>]

On Friday 06 January 2006 15:05, Christian Limpach wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 12:28:33PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > I realize that it was your preference to not split the i386 and x86-64
> > variants, as I had suggested with my patch. However, in course of
> > undoing that patch the bug fixes got dropped, too. Was that
> > intentional?
>
> I dropped the changes where instead of using =m, you suggested using +m.
> The original Linux' bitops.h uses =m and using +m doesn't really make
> a difference in this case.

It's actually using +m in the post 2.6.15 queue.

-Andi

_______________________________________________
Xen-merge mailing list
Xen-merge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-merge