[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090422090109.GC2479@pengutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:01:09 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sven@...bigcorporation.com>
Cc: linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RT] - Mismatching declaration and export
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:23:25AM -0700, Sven-Thorsten Dietrich wrote:
> Subject: Make function declaration match EXPORT()
> -unsigned long __lockfunc _spin_lock_irqsave_nested(spinlock_t *lock, int subclass)
> +unsigned long __lockfunc __spin_lock_irqsave_nested(spinlock_t *lock, int subclass)
ukl@...opus:~/gsrc/linux-2.6$ git show v2.6.29.1-rt8:kernel/spinlock.c | sed -n -e '357,376p'
unsigned long __lockfunc __spin_lock_irqsave_nested(raw_spinlock_t *lock, int subclass)
{
unsigned long flags;
local_irq_save(flags);
preempt_disable();
spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, subclass, 0, _RET_IP_);
/*
* On lockdep we dont want the hand-coded irq-enable of
* _raw_spin_lock_flags() code, because lockdep assumes
* that interrupts are not re-enabled during lock-acquire:
*/
#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
LOCK_CONTENDED(lock, _raw_spin_trylock, _raw_spin_lock);
#else
_raw_spin_lock_flags(lock, &flags);
#endif
return flags;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__spin_lock_irqsave_nested);
so this seems to be already included in 2.6.29.1-rt8. Where is it
missing?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
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