![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 08:52:46 +0200 Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote: > On Sunday 13 August 2006 07:48, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:37:07 +0200 (CEST) > > Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > This is a preparationary patch for converting stacktrace over to the > > > new dwarf2 unwinder. lockdep uses stacktrace and the new unwinder > > > takes the modlist_lock so using a normal spinlock would cause a deadlock. > > > Use a raw lock instead. > > > > > > > It breaks the build on most architectures. > > Hmm, I grepped and most architectures seem to have both __raw_spin_lock > and local_save_flags. box:/usr/src/25> grep -l raw_local_save_flags include/asm-*/*.h include/asm-avr32/irqflags.h include/asm-i386/irqflags.h include/asm-mips/irqflags.h include/asm-powerpc/irqflags.h include/asm-s390/irqflags.h include/asm-x86_64/irqflags.h > I didn't actually compile them because crosstool > doesn't love me anymore since I use gcc 4.0. crosstool is a bit of a bitch. > What is the official portable interface to do a raw spinlock > if this one doesn't work? I don't see a way, really. Apart from going in and implementing it on the various architectures. Perhaps x86_64-mm-module-locks-raw-spinlock-hack-hack-hack.patch could be hoisted up to include/linux/spinlock.h and then at least only lockdep-enabled architectures need to implement these things. - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-08-13 09:05 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||