On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 05:33:14PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 04:43:52PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > > >> A couple of questions on this: > > >> > > >> 1) I notice these spinlock functions are generally marked inline. > > >> > > >> Is that likely to happen in modules? If so, there would be a need to > > >> do SMP_ON_UP fixups at module load time -- I don't think that's > > >> currently implemented. > > > > > > No one should be using the arch_* spinlocks directly. The spinlocks > > > are implemented in out of line code in kernel/spinlock.c > > > > OK--- do think this is something we need a sanity-check for, or does > > this fall into to a category of bad driver implementation which will > > get thrown out during peer review? > > Hmm, actually it looks like you can end up with configurations where the > spinlocks are inlined. > > That means we'll have to get rid of the link-time discarding of the > .exit sections, and discard them along with the .init sections. ... but only when CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP=y. Nicolas
