From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [Linux-c6x-dev] [PATCH 06/35] Disintegrate asm/system.h for C6X [ver #2] Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:41:55 +0000 Message-ID: <20883.1331833315@redhat.com> References: <553CFBBAF1315044BC4CD328C97B0B1C17FA0A76@DNCE02.ent.ti.com> <20120312233602.13888.27659.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20120312233706.13888.5678.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1331728169.2167.2.camel@deneb.redhat.com> Return-path: In-Reply-To: <553CFBBAF1315044BC4CD328C97B0B1C17FA0A76@DNCE02.ent.ti.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Jacquiot, Aurelien" Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Mark Salter , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "paul.gortmaker@windriver.com" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org Jacquiot, Aurelien wrote: > Are you sure about the #define _ASM_C6X_BARRIER_H in exec.h? _ASM_C6X_EXEC_H > sounds better... Yep. David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65057 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1032048Ab2CORmE (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:42:04 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <553CFBBAF1315044BC4CD328C97B0B1C17FA0A76@DNCE02.ent.ti.com> References: <553CFBBAF1315044BC4CD328C97B0B1C17FA0A76@DNCE02.ent.ti.com> <20120312233602.13888.27659.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20120312233706.13888.5678.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1331728169.2167.2.camel@deneb.redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Linux-c6x-dev] [PATCH 06/35] Disintegrate asm/system.h for C6X [ver #2] Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:41:55 +0000 Message-ID: <20883.1331833315@redhat.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "Jacquiot, Aurelien" Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Mark Salter , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "paul.gortmaker@windriver.com" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" Message-ID: <20120315174155.3GFV71RDqRONb4pYvc7iFEK1O_s_a-4AaJZkJ1paQkQ@z> Jacquiot, Aurelien wrote: > Are you sure about the #define _ASM_C6X_BARRIER_H in exec.h? _ASM_C6X_EXEC_H > sounds better... Yep. David