From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1BVaHo-0006Hc-LE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:16:24 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1BVaHm-0006HQ-UV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:16:24 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BVaHm-0006HN-RL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:16:22 -0400
Received: from [213.191.74.84] (helo=mx2.ngi.de)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BVaGt-0003yl-0z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:15:27 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO rz.zidlicky.org) ([217.185.112.235])
	(envelope-sender <rz@linux-m68k.org>)
	by 0 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; 2 Jun 2004 18:06:11 -0000
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:47:21 +0200
From: Richard Zidlicky <rz@linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [bug] testandset and cpu_interrupt
Message-ID: <20040602134721.GA6081@linux-m68k.org>
References: <20040601223050.84871.qmail@web60208.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040601223050.84871.qmail@web60208.mail.yahoo.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 03:30:50PM -0700, Piotr Krysik wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Function testandset is referenced by cpu_interrupt, 
> spin_lock and spin_trylock (spin_lock and spin_trylock
> 
> for CONFIG_USER_ONLY). All these invocations assume 
> that testandset should return zero when lock is 
> successfully acquired.
> 
> I noticed that implementation of testandset for x86 
> does opposite, i.e. returns NON-zero when lock is 
> successfully acquired.

seems like m68k does the same.

Richard