On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 12:07 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 21:00 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Since it's all got "__" in the front, not good to use this method all > > > over .. If you just need a real spinlock best to use > > > DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK() unless your a special situation ..
die_lock has been RAW for a while, see older patches... but DEFINE_RAW or DECLARE_RAW should be used when possible. Sven > > > > Oopsing is a special situation. Nobody knows if all the fancy infrastructure > > lurking inside the other macros still works. > > In the case of spinlocks, real time just differs from the mainline > kernel by make a spinlock_t into a mutex .. We know that's not going to > work in this situation. The rest of the debugging added to spinlocks is > mostly un-changed from mainline (like lockdep is still there).. > > So you should be able to use a regular mainline style spinlock_t for the > die_lock, even with all the debugging ..\ I'll check in a minute, but pretty s > > The real time spinlock macros are pretty complex , but it's mostly > compile related complexity that disappears when you run the kernel. > > Daniel > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
