From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [patch 3/3] spinlock fix #3: type-checking spinlock primitives, x86
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:09:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050120120905.GA3493@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050120115947.GA31305@elte.hu>
this patch would have caught the bug in -BK-curr (that patch #1 fixes),
via a compiler warning. Test-built/booted on x86.
Ingo
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
--- linux/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h.orig
+++ linux/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h
@@ -36,7 +36,10 @@ typedef struct {
#define SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED (spinlock_t) { 1 SPINLOCK_MAGIC_INIT }
-#define spin_lock_init(x) do { *(x) = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; } while(0)
+static inline void spin_lock_init(spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+ *lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
+}
/*
* Simple spin lock operations. There are two variants, one clears IRQ's
@@ -45,8 +48,17 @@ typedef struct {
* We make no fairness assumptions. They have a cost.
*/
-#define spin_is_locked(x) (*(volatile signed char *)(&(x)->lock) <= 0)
-#define spin_unlock_wait(x) do { barrier(); } while(spin_is_locked(x))
+static inline int spin_is_locked(spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+ return *(volatile signed char *)(&lock->lock) <= 0;
+}
+
+static inline void spin_unlock_wait(spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+ do {
+ barrier();
+ } while (spin_is_locked(lock));
+}
#define spin_lock_string \
"\n1:\t" \
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-20 12:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-20 11:43 [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1 Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 11:59 ` [patch 2/3] spinlock fix #2: generalize [spin|rw]lock yielding Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 12:09 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-01-20 12:18 ` [patch] stricter type-checking rwlock primitives, x86 Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 12:22 ` [patch] minor spinlock cleanups Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 22:51 ` [patch 3/3] spinlock fix #3: type-checking spinlock primitives, x86 J.A. Magallon
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-01-19 9:18 Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 21:43 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-20 2:34 ` [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:01 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 3:18 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 8:59 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-20 15:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:08 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:11 ` [patch 2/3] spinlock fix #2: generalize [spin|rw]lock yielding Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:12 ` [patch 3/3] spinlock fix #3: type-checking spinlock primitives, x86 Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050120120905.GA3493@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox