[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOZdJXW8uF_e2nQr3gAiMf4E5pvsH_S-ztAXvx9R7-nXyaZGag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:02:12 -0500
From: Timur Tabi <timur@...i.org>
To: Arpit Goel <B44344@...escale.com>
Cc: linux@....linux.org.uk, takata@...ux-m32r.org, philb@....org,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
linux390@...ibm.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>, john.stultz@...aro.org,
jesper.nilsson@...s.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
sam@...nborg.org, linux-m32r-ja@...linux-m32r.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org,
linux-m32r@...linux-m32r.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Convert PowerPC macro spin_event_timeout() to
architecture independent macro
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Arpit Goel <B44344@...escale.com> wrote:
>
> +#ifndef spin_event_timeout
> +/**
Why don't you make PowerPC also use this generic version? It seems
silly to have two virtually identical implementations of this macro?
--
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