* SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED
@ 2006-03-24 21:56 Luca Falavigna
2006-03-26 16:44 ` SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Luca Falavigna @ 2006-03-24 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mingo; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List
Hi,
I noticed you recently changed the way you handle SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED macro.
Former version was something like that:
#define SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(lockname) \
(spinlock_t) { { __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(lockname) } }
while current version is:
# define SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED \
(spinlock_t) { { __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED } }
I noticed your 2.6.16-rt6 patch includes two calls to
SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(lockname) macro, the first one in
arch/powerpc/kernel/rtas.c and the last one in
include/asm-powerpc/rwsem.h.
Is this the right behaviour?
Regards,
--
Luca
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED
2006-03-24 21:56 SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED Luca Falavigna
@ 2006-03-26 16:44 ` Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2006-03-26 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luca Falavigna; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List
* Luca Falavigna <dktrkranz@gmail.com> wrote:
> I noticed your 2.6.16-rt6 patch includes two calls to
> SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(lockname) macro, the first one in
> arch/powerpc/kernel/rtas.c and the last one in
> include/asm-powerpc/rwsem.h.
> Is this the right behaviour?
you are right - i removed these leftovers from my tree.
Ingo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-03-26 16:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-03-24 21:56 SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED Luca Falavigna
2006-03-26 16:44 ` SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED Ingo Molnar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®