On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 7:47 AM, liguang <lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > originally, 'data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK', > and we use 'data->flags &= ~CSD_FLAG_LOCK' > for csd_unlock, they are not symmetrix operations > so use '|=' instead of '='. > though, now data->flags only hold CSD_FLAG_LOCK, > it's not so meaningful to use '|=' to set 1 bit, > and '&= ~' to clear 1 bit. >
Hi, what's the reason I got CCed on this two patches? The ipc-sem-next issue I reported? Against what tree are those patches? They are not compatible with Linux-Next (next-20130419). Thanks. Regards, - Sedat - [1] http://marc.info/?t=136631457900005&r=1&w=2 > Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> > --- > kernel/smp.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c > index 1818dc0..2d5deb4 100644 > --- a/kernel/smp.c > +++ b/kernel/smp.c > @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_single_data *data) > static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data) > { > csd_lock_wait(data); > - data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK; > + data->flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK; > > /* > * prevent CPU from reordering the above assignment > -- > 1.7.2.5 > -- 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/
