Re: [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Thu Jan 20 2005 - 12:14:38 EST
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I can do ppc64 myself, can others fix the other architectures (Ingo,
> > shouldn't the UP case have the read/write_can_lock() cases too? And
> > wouldn't you agree that it makes more sense to have the rwlock test
> > variants in asm/rwlock.h?):
>
> this one adds it to x64. (untested at the moment) [...]
with this patch the x64 SMP+PREEMPT kernel builds & boots fine on an UP
x64 box. (this is not a full test but better than nothing.) [the other 8
spinlock patches were all applied as well.]
Ingo
-
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/