From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [patch 3/3] spinlock fix #3: type-checking spinlock primitives, x86
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:09:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050120120905.GA3493@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050120115947.GA31305@elte.hu>
this patch would have caught the bug in -BK-curr (that patch #1 fixes),
via a compiler warning. Test-built/booted on x86.
Ingo
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
--- linux/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h.orig
+++ linux/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h
@@ -36,7 +36,10 @@ typedef struct {
#define SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED (spinlock_t) { 1 SPINLOCK_MAGIC_INIT }
-#define spin_lock_init(x) do { *(x) = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; } while(0)
+static inline void spin_lock_init(spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+ *lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
+}
/*
* Simple spin lock operations. There are two variants, one clears IRQ's
@@ -45,8 +48,17 @@ typedef struct {
* We make no fairness assumptions. They have a cost.
*/
-#define spin_is_locked(x) (*(volatile signed char *)(&(x)->lock) <= 0)
-#define spin_unlock_wait(x) do { barrier(); } while(spin_is_locked(x))
+static inline int spin_is_locked(spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+ return *(volatile signed char *)(&lock->lock) <= 0;
+}
+
+static inline void spin_unlock_wait(spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+ do {
+ barrier();
+ } while (spin_is_locked(lock));
+}
#define spin_lock_string \
"\n1:\t" \
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-20 12:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-20 11:43 [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1 Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 11:59 ` [patch 2/3] spinlock fix #2: generalize [spin|rw]lock yielding Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 12:09 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-01-20 12:18 ` [patch] stricter type-checking rwlock primitives, x86 Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 12:22 ` [patch] minor spinlock cleanups Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 22:51 ` [patch 3/3] spinlock fix #3: type-checking spinlock primitives, x86 J.A. Magallon
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-01-19 9:18 Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 21:43 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-20 2:34 ` [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:01 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 3:18 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 8:59 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-20 15:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:08 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:11 ` [patch 2/3] spinlock fix #2: generalize [spin|rw]lock yielding Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:12 ` [patch 3/3] spinlock fix #3: type-checking spinlock primitives, x86 Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:12 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050120120905.GA3493@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.