On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 20:21 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > Since the pte_lockptr is a spinlock it gets optimized away on > uniprocessor builds so using spin_is_locked is not correct. We can use > assert_spin_locked instead and get the proper behavior between UP and > SMP builds.
Thanks. Applied. Cheers, Ben. > Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <[email protected]> > --- > arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c > index 627767d..4b9a27d 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c > @@ -242,7 +242,7 @@ void assert_pte_locked(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned > long addr) > BUG_ON(pud_none(*pud)); > pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr); > BUG_ON(!pmd_present(*pmd)); > - BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(pte_lockptr(mm, pmd))); > + assert_spin_locked(pte_lockptr(mm, pmd)); > } > #endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_VM */ > _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
