There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
pair. This commit therefore removes the underlying arch-specific
arch_spin_unlock_wait().
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Russell King <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm/include/asm/spinlock.h | 16 ----------------
1 file changed, 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/spinlock.h
index 4bec45442072..c030143c18c6 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/spinlock.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/spinlock.h
@@ -52,22 +52,6 @@ static inline void dsb_sev(void)
* memory.
*/
-static inline void arch_spin_unlock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
-{
- u16 owner = READ_ONCE(lock->tickets.owner);
-
- for (;;) {
- arch_spinlock_t tmp = READ_ONCE(*lock);
-
- if (tmp.tickets.owner == tmp.tickets.next ||
- tmp.tickets.owner != owner)
- break;
-
- wfe();
- }
- smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
-}
-
#define arch_spin_lock_flags(lock, flags) arch_spin_lock(lock)
static inline void arch_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
--
2.5.2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
