[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901090835010.6528@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:37:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> __asm_inline was my suggestion, to distinguish "inline this
> unconditionally because gcc screws up in the presence of asm()"
THERE IS NO ASM IN THERE!
Guys, look at the code. No asm. The whole notion that gcc gets confused by
inline asms IS BOGUS. It's simply not TRUE. Gcc gets confused because gcc
is confused, and it has NOTHING to do with inline asms.
So please don't confuse things further.
Linus
--
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