On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 02:38 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Index: linux/lib/spinlock_debug.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/lib/spinlock_debug.c
> +++ linux/lib/spinlock_debug.c
> @@ -20,7 +20,8 @@ static void spin_bug(spinlock_t *lock, c
> if (lock->owner && lock->owner != SPINLOCK_OWNER_INIT)
> owner = lock->owner;
> printk("BUG: spinlock %s on CPU#%d, %s/%d\n",
> - msg, smp_processor_id(), current->comm,
> current->pid);
> + msg, raw_smp_processor_id(),
> + current->comm, current->pid);
> printk(" lock: %p, .magic: %08x, .owner: %s/%
> d, .owner_cpu: %d\n",
> lock, lock->magic,
> owner ? owner->comm : "<none>",
> @@ -78,8 +79,8 @@ static void __spin_lock_debug(spinlock_t
> if (print_once) {
> print_once = 0;
> printk("BUG: spinlock lockup on CPU#%d, %s/%d,
> %p\n",
> - smp_processor_id(), current->comm,
> current->pid,
> - lock);
> + raw_smp_processor_id(), current->comm,
> + current->pid, lock);
> dump_stack();
> }
> }
The changes here from smp_processor_id to raw_smp_processor_id seem to
be more clean up and not part of the mutex patch. Should these be sent
separately?
-- Steve
-
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]
