From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Grundler Subject: [parisc-linux] Re: [patch] spinlock consolidation, v2 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 09:12:32 -0600 Message-ID: <20050606151232.GA24437@colo.lackof.org> References: <20050603173132.GX14929@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20050606060512.GB30857@colo.lackof.org> <20050606073627.GA10387@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org, Matthew Wilcox To: Ingo Molnar Return-Path: In-Reply-To: <20050606073627.GA10387@elte.hu> 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 On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 09:36:27AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > 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? No. They were regular spinlocks before too. But there was a pretty ugly set of interdependencies between asm/system.h, spinlock.h, atomic.h, and bitops.h. The cleanup necessary might be alot more baggage than you want to carry around for this patch. > 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. They are arch specific types (asm/spinlock_types.h) and I'm only using raw_spinlock_t in arch specific code. > 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) I'll take another quick look and see where the circular dependencies are now. thanks, grant _______________________________________________ parisc-linux mailing list parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux