[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1287077465.8344.47.camel@thinkpad>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:31:05 +0200
From: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mutex: Introduce mutex_cpu_relax()
On Do, 2010-10-14 at 17:59 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 17:33 +0200, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
>
> > --- a/arch/s390/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig
> > @@ -100,6 +100,7 @@ config S390
> > select HAVE_KERNEL_BZIP2
> > select HAVE_KERNEL_LZMA
> > select HAVE_KERNEL_LZO
> > + select HAVE_MUTEX_CPU_RELAX
> > select ARCH_INLINE_SPIN_TRYLOCK
> > select ARCH_INLINE_SPIN_TRYLOCK_BH
> > select ARCH_INLINE_SPIN_LOCK
>
> >
> > +#ifndef HAVE_MUTEX_CPU_RELAX
> > +#define mutex_cpu_relax() cpu_relax()
> > +#endif
>
> Won't KConfig make CONFIG_HAVE_MUTEX_CPU_RELAX from that?
>
> Also, don't you have to first create a dummy Kconfig variable before you
> select it?
Of course you're right. I first used a #define in a header file,
but decided to rather use the Kconfig approach to avoid header
file dependency problems, should have been more careful with that.
I'll send a new patch.
--
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