Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:40:18 +1000 | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.5.27 spinlock |
| |
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:50:22 +0200 Marcin Dalecki <dalecki@evision.ag> wrote:
> - Add missing _raw_write_trylock() definitions for the UP preemption case. > > - Replace tons of georgeous macros for the UP preemption case with > static inline functions. Much nicer to look at and more adequate then > ({ xxxx }) in this case.
Martin, this patch is wrong, obvious from casual reading:
> -#define spin_trylock_bh(lock) ({ int __r; local_bh_disable();\ > +#define spin_trylock_bh(lock) do { int __r; local_bh_disable();\ > __r = spin_trylock(lock); \ > if (!__r) local_bh_enable(); \ > - __r; }) > + __r; } while (0)
I know you're smarter than this Martin 8)
Rusty. PS. If you want them re-xmitted to Linus, send to trivial@rustcorp.com.au... -- there are those who do and those who hang on and you don't see too many doers quoting their contemporaries. -- Larry McVoy - 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/
| |