* Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> wrote:

quoted text
> On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 10:48 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Defining GENERIC_LOCKBREAK in arch/s390/Kconfig takes care of it.
> > I'll 
> > > cook up a patch and queue it in git390.
> > 
> > the one below should do the trick.
> 
> Thanks but I already queued a different one (see below). The other 
> architectures that define GENERIC_LOCKBREAK have the "depends on SMP 
> && PREEMPT" line as well. The line does make sense if you look at the 
> way how spin_is_contended is used, no ?

yes, you are right and your fix is the correct one. Currently, if we 
define GENERIC_LOCKBREAK on UP then we get accesses to the non-existing 
lock->need_lockbreak field.

[ btw., this is really a small uncleanliness in the generic code: it
  should be possible for an architecture to just enable
  GENERIC_LOCKBREAK unconditionally, to indicate that it intends to "let
  the generic code do this". Then the generic code, when it does not
  have a field (such as on UP), should just not access it. But this is a
  small detail. ]

	Ingo
--
unsubscribe notice
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/