On 06/07/2015 15:31, Andrew Jones wrote:
> + if (argc && strcmp(argv[0], "non-atomic") != 0) {
You want == here, don't you?
The reason I switched was that the non-atomic test didn't work for me.
I have now debugged it, and it needs this:
@@ -29,12 +29,12 @@ static void gcc_builtin_unlock(int *lock_var)
}
static void none_lock(int *lock_var)
{
- while (*lock_var != 0);
- *lock_var = 1;
+ while (*(volatile int *)lock_var != 0);
+ *(volatile int *)lock_var = 1;
}
static void none_unlock(int *lock_var)
{
- *lock_var = 0;
+ *(volatile int *)lock_var = 0;
}
static int global_a, global_b;
Otherwise the none_lock function does not reload lock_var.
Paolo
> lock_ops.lock = none_lock;
> lock_ops.unlock = none_unlock;
> + } else {
> + lock_ops.lock = gcc_builtin_lock;
> + lock_ops.unlock = gcc_builtin_unlock;
> }
--
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
