From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Grundler Subject: [parisc-linux] Re: [patch] spinlock consolidation, v2 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 00:29:38 -0600 Message-ID: <20050613062938.GD21766@colo.lackof.org> 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> <20050612073453.GA7718@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: <20050612073453.GA7718@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 Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 09:34:53AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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? 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