On Wednesday 26 October 2005 00:22, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 October 2005 00:13, Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso wrote:
> > I.e. the implementation was written, is present in the tree, but due to
> > this:
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK
> > #include <linux/rwsem-spinlock.h> /* use a generic implementation */
> > #else
> > #include <asm/rwsem.h> /* use an arch-specific implementation */
> > #endif
> >
> > it was probably _NEVER_ compiled!!!
> Actually it was, but we switched it back because there were some doubts
> on the correctness of the xchg based implementation and the generic
> one looked much cleaner. So far nobody showed a significant performance
> different too.
> I should probably remove asm/rwsem.h.
That's fine too, the current situation is clearly bogus.
Thanks for the quick answer.
> Don't apply please.
Agreed.
--
Inform me of my mistakes, so I can keep imitating Homer Simpson's "Doh!".
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade (Skype ID "PaoloGiarrusso", ICQ 215621894)
http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade
___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it
-
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]
