* Frank Rowand <[email protected]> wrote:
> I looked at all the architectures and found that the disparity of the
> type of the "lock" field in struct rwlock_t is even larger than I had
> indicated in my earlier email. I am attaching a proof of concept
> patch to handle this. If this looks like a good method to you then I
> will create a real patch against your current patch, and include i386,
> mips, x86_64, and ppc.
> +#include <asm/raw_spinlock.h>
> typedef struct {
> - volatile unsigned long lock;
> + ARCH_RAW_RWLOCK_LOCK
maybe the simplest method would be to let architectures to define the
raw spinlock type after all. I was hoping to standardize things across
all architectures, but maybe it's not possible.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
