No, this is not in arm. Here is the patch.
Index: linux-2.6.10/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.10.orig/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h 2005-02-11
09:25:39.224240321 +0000
+++ linux-2.6.10/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h 2005-02-11 09:25:58.006812173
+0000
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
#define __raw_spin_is_locked(x) (*(volatile signed char *)(&(x)->lock)
<= 0)
#define __raw_spin_unlock_wait(x) \
- do { barrier(); } while(__spin_is_locked(x))
+ do { barrier(); } while(__raw_spin_is_locked(x))
#define spin_lock_string \
"\n1:\t" \
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ingo Molnar
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 12:34 AM
> To: George Anzinger
> Cc: William Weston; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.11-rc3-V0.7.38-01
>
>
>
> * George Anzinger <george@mvista.com> wrote:
>
> > Possibly from:
> > define __raw_spin_is_locked(x) (*(volatile signed char
> *)(&(x)->lock) <= 0)
> > #define __raw_spin_unlock_wait(x) \
> > do { barrier(); } while(__spin_is_locked(x))
> > in asm/spinlock.h
> >
> > should that be __raw_spin_is_locked(x) instead?
>
> yeah. Is this in the ARM patch? I havent applied the ARM
> patch yet, waiting to see Thomas Gleixner's generic-hardirq
> based one. (which is more compelling from an architectural
> and long-term maintainance POV - but also more work to
> address all of RMK's concerns.)
>
> Ingo
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in the body of a message to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at
> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
