On Mon, 2014-05-19 at 12:48 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2014 08:13:16 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > Presumably a result of commit fe2038c57c03 ("rwsem: Support optimistic
> > > spinning").
> >
> > If CONFIG_SMP, we add two new fields to the rwsem structure
> > (include/linux/rwsem.h) and likewise we update the
> > __RWSEM_INITIALIZER(name) macro. Afaict the only way to trigger
> > something like that is to be using the spinlock variant
> > (rwsem-spinlock.h).
> >
> > The fix for that would be:
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rwsem.h b/include/linux/rwsem.h
> > index 3e108f1..091d993 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rwsem.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rwsem.h
> > @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ static inline int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > # define __RWSEM_DEP_MAP_INIT(lockname)
> > #endif
> >
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) && defined(CONFIG_RWSEM_XCHGADD_ALGORITHM)
> > #define __RWSEM_INITIALIZER(name) \
> > { RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE, \
> > __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(name.wait_lock), \
>
> that squishes the warnings for me.
You guys know best, but shouldn't this change be routed through -tip?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
