From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932523AbXAQQ30 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:29:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932573AbXAQQ30 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:29:26 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:38178 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932523AbXAQQ3Z (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:29:25 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:28:17 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Roland Dreier Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: On some configs, sparse spinlock balance checking is broken Message-ID: <20070117162817.GB14727@elte.hu> References: <20070117063450.GC14027@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4.3 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.3 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -3.3 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts -1.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Roland Dreier wrote: > And actually the lock stuff is OK, since it's not inlined -- it's the > unlock stuff that goes directly to the __raw versions. But something > like the following works for me; does it look OK to you? yeah, it looks good to me too. Hopefully this will work with the include file ordering of all platforms. Ingo