On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:50:22 +0200
Marcin Dalecki <dalecki@evision.ag> wrote:
> - Add missing _raw_write_trylock() definitions for the UP preemption case.
>
> - Replace tons of georgeous macros for the UP preemption case with
> static inline functions. Much nicer to look at and more adequate then
> ({ xxxx }) in this case.
Martin, this patch is wrong, obvious from casual reading:
> -#define spin_trylock_bh(lock) ({ int __r; local_bh_disable();\
> +#define spin_trylock_bh(lock) do { int __r; local_bh_disable();\
> __r = spin_trylock(lock); \
> if (!__r) local_bh_enable(); \
> - __r; })
> + __r; } while (0)
I know you're smarter than this Martin 8)
Rusty.
PS. If you want them re-xmitted to Linus, send to trivial@rustcorp.com.au...
-- there are those who do and those who hang on and you don't see too many doers quoting their contemporaries. -- Larry McVoy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 30 2002 - 14:00:15 EST