Re: [patch] 2.6.6-rc2 Allow architectures to reenable interrupts on contended spinlocks

[Keith Owens]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:54:11 +1000, 
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> +#ifdef __HAVE_ARCH_RAW_SPIN_LOCK_FLAGS
>> +#define _raw_spin_lock(lock) _raw_spin_lock_flags(lock, 0)
>> +#else
>> +#define _raw_spin_lock_flags(lock, flags) do { (void)flags; _raw_spin_lock(lock); } while(0)
>> +#endif
>
>Looks good, except as paulus noted that using 0 for flags in the
>_raw_spin_lock() case is wrong, since 0 is a valid flags value
>for some archs that could mean anything... 

0 is valid for ia64, which is the only architecture that currently
defines __HAVE_ARCH_RAW_SPIN_LOCK_FLAGS.  If other architectures want
to define __HAVE_ARCH_RAW_SPIN_LOCK_FLAGS and they need a different
flag value to indicate 'no flags available' then the 0 can be changed
to an arch defined value.  Worry about that if it ever occurs.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/