Re: [patch 07/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, mutex-debug-more.patch

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/