From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:59:37 +0000 Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Message-Id: <20050120165937.GA17262@elte.hu> List-Id: References: <20050119092013.GA2045@elte.hu> <16878.54402.344079.528038@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20050120023445.GA3475@taniwha.stupidest.org> <20050119190104.71f0a76f.akpm@osdl.org> <20050120031854.GA8538@taniwha.stupidest.org> <16879.29449.734172.893834@wombat.chubb.wattle.id.au> <20050120160839.GA13067@elte.hu> <20050120164428.GA16342@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20050120164428.GA16342@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Chubb , Chris Wedgwood , Andrew Morton , paulus@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com, dsw@gelato.unsw.edu.au, benh@kernel.crashing.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, wli@holomorphy.com, jbarnes@sgi.com * Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > I can do ppc64 myself, can others fix the other architectures (Ingo, > > shouldn't the UP case have the read/write_can_lock() cases too? And > > wouldn't you agree that it makes more sense to have the rwlock test > > variants in asm/rwlock.h?): > > this one adds it to x64. (untested at the moment) [...] with this patch the x64 SMP+PREEMPT kernel builds & boots fine on an UP x64 box. (this is not a full test but better than nothing.) [the other 8 spinlock patches were all applied as well.] Ingo