Il 15/06/2014 14:47, Peter Zijlstra ha scritto:
#if !defined(CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE) && !defined(CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE)
-#define queue_spin_unlock queue_spin_unlock
/**
* queue_spin_unlock - release a queue spinlock
* @lock : Pointer to queue spinlock structure
*
* An effective smp_store_release() on the least-significant byte.
*/
-static inline void queue_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
+static inline void native_queue_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
{
barrier();
ACCESS_ONCE(*(u8 *)lock) = 0;
}
+#else
+
+static inline void native_queue_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
+{
+ atomic_dec(&lock->val);
+}
+
#endif /* !CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE && !CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE */
Should be (part of) an earlier patch? Also, does it get wrong if
(CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE || CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE) && paravirt patches the
unlock to a single movb? Of course the paravirt spinlocks could simply
depend on !CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE && !CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE.
+
+#define INVALID_HEAD -1
+#define NO_HEAD nr_cpu_ids
+
-2, like Waiman said.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
