Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 20:36:22 -0700 From: Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling@kev009.com> To: mjguzik@gmail.com Cc: ian@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, scottl@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r341682 - head/sys/sys Message-ID: <CAK7dMtBj26Fa-eS3WcKezjnrweDJ9RgZvBpbiRK-9S-A4Svb8Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAGudoHGUqiByb37wcbhMD3eWmxFrX5=BKMiF3bk6Ptr2WWggAg@mail.gmail.com> References: <201812071205.wB7C5BvA038350@repo.freebsd.org> <1544206201.1860.288.camel@freebsd.org> <CAGudoHGUqiByb37wcbhMD3eWmxFrX5=BKMiF3bk6Ptr2WWggAg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 12:09 AM Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote: > > Fully satisfying solution would be that all architectures get 64-bit > ops, even if in the worst case they end up taking a lock. Then > subsystems would not have to ifdef on anything. However, there > was some opposition to this proposal and I don't think this is > important enough to push. Mateusz, Who is opposing this particular polyfill solution? Scott Long brought up a situation in driver development where this would be useful as well. The polyfills lower the cognitive load and #ifdef soup which are the right call here regardless of performance on toy ports. Regards, Kevin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAK7dMtBj26Fa-eS3WcKezjnrweDJ9RgZvBpbiRK-9S-A4Svb8Q>