Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:59:37 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives |
| |
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote: > > > I can do ppc64 myself, can others fix the other architectures (Ingo, > > shouldn't the UP case have the read/write_can_lock() cases too? And > > wouldn't you agree that it makes more sense to have the rwlock test > > variants in asm/rwlock.h?): > > this one adds it to x64. (untested at the moment) [...]
with this patch the x64 SMP+PREEMPT kernel builds & boots fine on an UP x64 box. (this is not a full test but better than nothing.) [the other 8 spinlock patches were all applied as well.]
Ingo - 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/
| |