Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:34:08 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.11-rc3-V0.7.38-01 |
| |
* George Anzinger <george@mvista.com> wrote:
> Possibly from: > define __raw_spin_is_locked(x) (*(volatile signed char *)(&(x)->lock) <= 0) > #define __raw_spin_unlock_wait(x) \ > do { barrier(); } while(__spin_is_locked(x)) > in asm/spinlock.h > > should that be __raw_spin_is_locked(x) instead?
yeah. Is this in the ARM patch? I havent applied the ARM patch yet, waiting to see Thomas Gleixner's generic-hardirq based one. (which is more compelling from an architectural and long-term maintainance POV - but also more work to address all of RMK's concerns.)
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/
| |