[parisc-linux] Re: [patch] spinlock consolidation, v2

[Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org>]

On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 09:34:53AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org> 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 <asm/atomic.h> to linux/spinlock.h? 

Hrmm...I'm not sure I'd call that a "problem".
linux/spinlock.h uses atomic_t and following current rules,
it should include some version of atomic.h to get a definition
of atomic_t.

> 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?

I remove the include but continued to use "atomic_t" anyway.
That built too. :^)

Oh, sorry. I just realized that's still with my patch in place.
Tomorrow I'll back out my patch and see if it still builds.

BTW, I do not like "void *" if we can (and should) use a special typedef.

thanks,
grant
_______________________________________________
parisc-linux mailing list
parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org
http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux