On 01/30/2014 10:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 02:04:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:So I took out that ugly union and rewrote the code to be mostly atomic_*(), gcc generates acceptable code and its smaller too. 824 0 0 824 338 defconfig-build/kernel/locking/qrwlock.o 776 0 0 776 308 defconfig-build/kernel/locking/qrwlock.o I don't think I wrecked it, but I've not actually tried it yet.I did wreck it.. :-) The below is still small and actually works. --- arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock_types.h | 4 b/arch/x86/include/asm/qrwlock.h | 18 +++ b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h | 174 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock_types.h | 17 +++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c | 157 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ kernel/Kconfig.locks | 7 + kernel/locking/Makefile | 1 9 files changed, 381 insertions(+) --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
OK, I see what you are trying to do. I can apply the change to my patch & send out v12. So I presume that you are now OK with it. Can I add your sign-off line?
-Longman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
