Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 07:39:06 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Frank Rowand <frowand@mvista.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] ppc RT: Realtime preempt support for PPC
Message-ID: <20050405053906.GA19062@elte.hu>
References: <422CCC1D.1050902@mvista.com> <20050316100914.GA16012@elte.hu> <423F691E.200@mvista.com> <424B542F.9090308@mvista.com> <20050331091614.GB22397@elte.hu> <424DDF5F.9080909@mvista.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <424DDF5F.9080909@mvista.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1000
Lines: 26


* Frank Rowand <frowand@mvista.com> wrote:

> I looked at all the architectures and found that the disparity of the 
> type of the "lock" field in struct rwlock_t is even larger than I had 
> indicated in my earlier email.  I am attaching a proof of concept 
> patch to handle this.  If this looks like a good method to you then I 
> will create a real patch against your current patch, and include i386, 
> mips, x86_64, and ppc.

> +#include <asm/raw_spinlock.h>

>  typedef struct {
> -       volatile unsigned long lock;
> +       ARCH_RAW_RWLOCK_LOCK

maybe the simplest method would be to let architectures to define the 
raw spinlock type after all. I was hoping to standardize things across 
all architectures, but maybe it's not possible.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/