Messages in this thread | | | From | Keith Owens <> | Subject | Re: [patch] 2.6.6-rc2 Allow architectures to reenable interrupts on contended spinlocks | Date | Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:45:52 +1000 |
| |
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:54:11 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > >> +#ifdef __HAVE_ARCH_RAW_SPIN_LOCK_FLAGS >> +#define _raw_spin_lock(lock) _raw_spin_lock_flags(lock, 0) >> +#else >> +#define _raw_spin_lock_flags(lock, flags) do { (void)flags; _raw_spin_lock(lock); } while(0) >> +#endif > >Looks good, except as paulus noted that using 0 for flags in the >_raw_spin_lock() case is wrong, since 0 is a valid flags value >for some archs that could mean anything...
0 is valid for ia64, which is the only architecture that currently defines __HAVE_ARCH_RAW_SPIN_LOCK_FLAGS. If other architectures want to define __HAVE_ARCH_RAW_SPIN_LOCK_FLAGS and they need a different flag value to indicate 'no flags available' then the 0 can be changed to an arch defined value. Worry about that if it ever occurs.
- 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/
| |