* Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > instead? Not that that's really right either, but at least it avoids > > the _ridiculous_ crap. The real solution is probably to use a > > spinlock and trylock/unlock. > > Or test_and_set_bit(). That's what I've been saying too, only > differently ;) > > But cleaning up the long-standing silly usage of xchg() is a different > activity from suppressing this recently-added compile warning. actually, in this case i disagree: the warning here is a canary that there's something wrong about this code - i.e. gcc is _right_ about warning us. The warning is also totally harmless - the warning shows us the suckiness of the code structure - and squashing the warning doesnt fix that. So im coal-mine analogies, i disagree with squashing the canary, we should find and fix the shaft that emits the smelly methane instead ;-) Ingo
