[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1377822408.4028.44.camel@pasglop>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:26:48 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>,
Michael Neuling <michael.neuling@....ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless
update of refcount
On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 16:42 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> For architecture people (ie Ben, if you want to try this on ppc64),
> the thing that it needs from an architecture:
>
> - the raw_spinlock_t and the "unsigned long" needs to fit in a u64.
I assume you mean unsigned int ? :-)
.../...
> - the architecture needs to implement a simple
> "arch_spin_value_unlocked()" macro, which takes a raw_spinlock_t value
> and says whether it is unlocked or not.
What's wrong with the existing arch_spin_is_locked() ?
BTW. Do you have your test case at hand ?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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