Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 May 2014 14:17:58 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the akpm tree |
| |
On Mon, 19 May 2014 13:56:20 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-05-19 at 12:48 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 19 May 2014 08:13:16 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com> wrote: > > > > > > Presumably a result of commit fe2038c57c03 ("rwsem: Support optimistic > > > > spinning"). > > > > > > If CONFIG_SMP, we add two new fields to the rwsem structure > > > (include/linux/rwsem.h) and likewise we update the > > > __RWSEM_INITIALIZER(name) macro. Afaict the only way to trigger > > > something like that is to be using the spinlock variant > > > (rwsem-spinlock.h). > > > > > > The fix for that would be: > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/rwsem.h b/include/linux/rwsem.h > > > index 3e108f1..091d993 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/rwsem.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/rwsem.h > > > @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ static inline int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem) > > > # define __RWSEM_DEP_MAP_INIT(lockname) > > > #endif > > > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) && defined(CONFIG_RWSEM_XCHGADD_ALGORITHM) > > > #define __RWSEM_INITIALIZER(name) \ > > > { RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE, \ > > > __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(name.wait_lock), \ > > > > that squishes the warnings for me. > > You guys know best, but shouldn't this change be routed through -tip?
Yes, this patch and the two fixes I have applied to it should be sent that way. If/when they turn up in -next I will drop my copies.
Keep sending ;)
| |