On (10/25/18 10:11), Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > s390 is the only architecture that is using own bust_spinlocks()
> > variant, while other arch-s seem to be OK with the common
> > implementation.
> >
> > Heiko Carstens [1] said he would prefer s390 to use the common
> > bust_spinlocks() as well:
> > I did some code archaeology and this function is unchanged since ~17
> > years. When it was introduced it was close to identical to the x86
> > variant. All other architectures use the common code variant in the
> > meantime. So if we change this I'd prefer that we switch s390 to the
> > common code variant as well. Right now I can't see a reason for not
> > doing that
> >
> > This patch removes s390 bust_spinlocks() and drops the weak attribute
> > from the common bust_spinlocks() version.
> >
> > [1] lkml.kernel.org/r/20181025062800.GB4037@osiris
> > Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > arch/s390/mm/fault.c | 24 ------------------------
> > lib/bust_spinlocks.c | 6 +++---
> > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> I gave this some testing and forced panic/die in interrupt as well as
> process context with different consoles as well as single and multi
> cpu systems. Everything still seems to work.
That was quick ;) Thanks.
> So I'm applying this to our internal queue first. It will hit upstream
> latest in the next merge window if there aren't any issues found.
Sure; sounds like a plan.
-ss
