From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: [parisc-linux] Re: [patch] spinlock consolidation, v2 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:44:07 +0200 Message-ID: <20050613074407.GA13878@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> <20050612073453.GA7718@elte.hu> <20050613062938.GD21766@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: <20050613062938.GD21766@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: > > 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. yeah, agreed - that was just a quick hack, to see whether the dependency problem is sorted out via it. (i'm not sure it will be resolved) I'd like to address these dependency problems without having to change any spinlock to raw_spinlock. Ingo _______________________________________________ parisc-linux mailing list parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux