From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: [parisc-linux] Re: [patch] spinlock consolidation, v2 Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:34:53 +0200 Message-ID: <20050612073453.GA7718@elte.hu> References: <20050603173132.GX14929@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20050606060512.GB30857@colo.lackof.org> <20050606073627.GA10387@elte.hu> <20050606175029.GC24437@colo.lackof.org> <20050612064922.GA5257@elte.hu> <20050612072507.GB25059@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: <20050612072507.GB25059@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: > > thanks. I'm still wondering about the fundamental question though: why > > doesnt the box boot without your patch? > > Did you mean to ask: Why doesn't the kernel build w/o my patch? ah, ok. If that's the case, then the main problem is that i've added #include to linux/spinlock.h? If you remove that include from linux/spinlock.h and if you hack atomic_dec_and_lock to not use atomic_t but void *, does it build fine? Ingo _______________________________________________ parisc-linux mailing list parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux