On (10/25/18 10:11), Heiko Carstens wrote: > > s390 is the only architecture that is using own bust_spinlocks() > > variant, while other arch-s seem to be OK with the common > > implementation. > > > > Heiko Carstens [1] said he would prefer s390 to use the common > > bust_spinlocks() as well: > > I did some code archaeology and this function is unchanged since ~17 > > years. When it was introduced it was close to identical to the x86 > > variant. All other architectures use the common code variant in the > > meantime. So if we change this I'd prefer that we switch s390 to the > > common code variant as well. Right now I can't see a reason for not > > doing that > > > > This patch removes s390 bust_spinlocks() and drops the weak attribute > > from the common bust_spinlocks() version. > > > > [1] lkml.kernel.org/r/20181025062800.GB4037@osiris > > Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/s390/mm/fault.c | 24 ------------------------ > > lib/bust_spinlocks.c | 6 +++--- > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > > I gave this some testing and forced panic/die in interrupt as well as > process context with different consoles as well as single and multi > cpu systems. Everything still seems to work. That was quick ;) Thanks. > So I'm applying this to our internal queue first. It will hit upstream > latest in the next merge window if there aren't any issues found. Sure; sounds like a plan. -ss
