* Waiman Long <waiman.l...@hp.com> wrote:
> > That said, the MUTEX_SHOULD_XCHG_COUNT macro should die. Why shouldn't all
> > architectures just consider negative counts to be locked? It doesn't matter
> > that some might only ever see -1.
>
> I think so too. However, I don't have the machines to test out other
> architectures. The MUTEX_SHOULD_XCHG_COUNT is just a safety measure to make
> sure
> that my code won't screw up the kernel in other architectures. Once it is
> confirmed that a negative count other than -1 is fine for all the other
> architectures, the macro can certainly go.
I'd suggest to just remove it in an additional patch, Cc:-ing
linux-a...@vger.kernel.org. The change is very likely to be fine, if not then
it's
easy to revert it.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
