lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch] 2.6.6-rc2 Allow architectures to reenable interrupts on contended spinlocks
    Date
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:3.092 / U:0.112 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site