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

[Tony Mantler]

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:
[...]
>> +#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 at apia.dhs.org
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada           --           http://nicoya.feline.pp.se/


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