lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Define __raw_read_lock etc for uniprocessor builds
    On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:42:36PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:38 -0500, Joe Korty wrote:
    > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:32:02PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > > > On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:29 -0500, Joe Korty wrote:
    > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:17:12PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 01:09:54PM -0500, Joe Korty wrote:
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Make NOPed versions of __raw_read_lock and family available
    > > > > > > under uniprocessor kernels.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Discovered when compiling a uniprocessor kernel with the
    > > > > > > fusyn patch applied.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > The standard kernel does not use __raw_read_lock etc
    > > > > > > outside of spinlock.c, which may account for this bug
    > > > > > > being undiscovered until now.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > No one should call these directly. Please fix your odd patch instead.
    > > > >
    > > > > Actually the patch calls the _raw version which is #defined to the __raw
    > > > > version. So it is doing the correct thing.
    > > >
    > > > no it's not, it has no business calling the _raw version either.
    > >
    > > Nope.
    > >
    > > 1) The _raw_spin_lock family is used everywhere in the kernel.
    >
    > no it's not. It's used in a few very special architecture places, and in
    > the spinlock.c code, and in one place of the scheduler, which is
    > arguably special.
    >
    > I don't know what kernel you're looking at.. but it's not a kernel.org
    > one.
    >
    >
    > > 2) The _raw versions are intended to be used in places where it is
    > > known that preemption is already disabled, so that the overhead of
    > > re-disabling/enabling it can be avoided.
    >
    > that's not true either. If it was, then the name would have been
    > different.

    I'll leave it to Ingo to decide. After all, the NOPed versions are in the
    tree already and have been for some time. They just are under the wrong
    #ifdef, so it seems like it was his intent to provide it, but failed to
    do so in a way that actually enabled them.

    (and '_raw' is a perfect prefix for the core spinlock services).

    Joe
    -
    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: 2006-01-24 20:01    [W:0.023 / U:31.284 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site