From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/atomic changes for v2.6.35 Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 12:00:41 -0700 Message-ID: <4BF43559.6080808@zytor.com> References: <20100517224531.GA27400@elte.hu> <4BF3F480.3000902@zytor.com> <20100519161828.GB16082@linux-sh.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:49770 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752175Ab0ESTBN (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2010 15:01:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100519161828.GB16082@linux-sh.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Paul Mundt Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Ingo Molnar , Luca Barbieri , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On 05/19/2010 09:18 AM, Paul Mundt wrote: > > No, the problem isn't solved, you apparently overlooked the part of > Geert's mail that point out that the test fails to build on architecures > that _do_ have atomic64_t. All of arm/parisc/powerpc/sh select > GENERIC_ATOMIC64, suggesting that the test itself was only ever tested on > x86 and never on the generic implementation. While that may be par for > the course these days, it's still pretty poor form. > I don't see any atomic64_t issues in the ARM, PowerPC or MIPS builds -- which doesn't mean they're not there, but if so they're obscured by other errors. m68k is missing #include in , and SPARC64 and S390 seems to have issues due to missing in atomic64_test.c; the latter is indeed a bug in the test and yes, should be fixed. -hpa