From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: [parisc-linux] Re: [patch] spinlock consolidation, v2 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 09:36:27 +0200 Message-ID: <20050606073627.GA10387@elte.hu> References: <20050603173132.GX14929@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20050606060512.GB30857@colo.lackof.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org, Matthew Wilcox To: Grant Grundler Return-Path: In-Reply-To: <20050606060512.GB30857@colo.lackof.org> List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: parisc-linux-bounces@lists.parisc-linux.org * Grant Grundler wrote: > > the latest version of the spinlock consolidation patch can be found at: > > > > http://redhat.com/~mingo/spinlock-patches/consolidate-spinlocks.patch > > I've adapted parisc-linux to this patch and put my changes into > a patch that goes on top of Ingo's. i'm wondering, is the conversion to raw_spinlock_t absolutely necessary to get a working PARISC kernel? I feel a bit uneasy about using the raw spinlocks directly - they were not intended to be used like that, for the time being. Right now they are internal types. You should be able to use spinlock_types.h just as much to simplify your include file dependencies. (as long as you use the spinlock APIs only in .c files) Ingo _______________________________________________ parisc-linux mailing list parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux