From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755128AbZBIO6S (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:58:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753518AbZBIO6B (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:58:01 -0500 Received: from acsinet12.oracle.com ([141.146.126.234]:25442 "EHLO acsinet12.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752306AbZBIO6A (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:58:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Build failure with latest -git: btrfs on ppc64 From: Chris Mason To: Kyle McMartin Cc: Chuck Ebbert , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar In-Reply-To: <20090207232458.GB23407@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20090207155039.3b6a7429@dhcp-100-2-144.bos.redhat.com> <20090207232458.GB23407@bombadil.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:57:26 -0500 Message-Id: <1234191446.1262.3.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: acsmt707.oracle.com [141.146.40.85] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090205.4990445A.02BC:SCFSTAT928724,ss=1,fgs=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2009-02-07 at 18:24 -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote: > On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 03:50:39PM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > fs/btrfs/locking.c: In function 'btrfs_path_lock_waiting': > > fs/btrfs/locking.c:254: error: implicit declaration of function '__raw_spin_is_contended' > > > > Looks like spin_is_contended() is only available on mips and x86?? > > > > Looks to be if there are other folks in line for the ticket lock. > > Arguably this should probably be something silly in spinlock.h like, > > #ifndef __raw_spin_is_contended > # define spin_is_contended (0) > #else > # define spin_is_contended(x) __raw_spin_is_contended((x)) > #endif > > or something since in theory anybody has a chance of acquiring it next > (well, lies because caches bias, but there's no waiters at least.) > > Either that, or we just define it to be spin_is_locked if the assumption > is that the lock will continue to be locked... Ok, I thought this would be defined to something simple for the non-ticket users, should I just not be using this call? -chris