Re: Success kernel-243pre8-SMP(patch)(Re: spin_lock problem in recent kernel

At 8:18 PM -0600 3/29/2001, Tom Gall wrote:

 So assuming that CONFIG_SMP is on, this patch shouldn't yeild anything
different what so ever from a codegen perspective with or without the
patch for an SMP kernel build. It doesn't make sense.

Kaoru Fukui wrote:

[...]

quoted

+#ifndef CONFIG_SMP
        spin_lock(&init_mm.page_table_lock);
+#endif

That's #if*n*def, not #ifdef. :)

And speaking of #ifndef, why are these spinlocks here in the first place
and/or why do they now need to be removed? Just suddenly removing locks
because of a new deadlock condition gets my spidey senses tingling.


Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)


--
Tony "Nicoya" Mantler - Renaissance Nerd Extraordinaire - nicoya@apia.dhs.org
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada           --           http://nicoya.feline.pp.se/


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/