[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070809014254.GB12539@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 03:42:54 +0200
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] x86_64: ticket lock spinlock
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 12:26:55PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > *
> > * (the type definitions are in asm/spinlock_types.h)
> > */
> >
> > +#if (NR_CPUS > 256)
> > +#error spinlock supports a maximum of 256 CPUs
> > +#endif
> > +
> > static inline int __raw_spin_is_locked(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
> > {
> > - return *(volatile signed int *)(&(lock)->slock) <= 0;
> > + int tmp = *(volatile signed int *)(&(lock)->slock);
>
> Why is slock not volatile signed int in the first place?
Don't know really. Why does spin_is_locked need it to be volatile?
> > - int oldval;
> > + short tmp;
> > + short oldval;
>
> Broken white space?
Hmm, I'll fix it.
Thanks,
Nick
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists