Re: [PATCH 1/4] perf, x86: Add Intel Nehalem/Westmere uncore pmu

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 14:39 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> > Does this really need to be a raw spinlock? 
> 
> I think spinlock is enough. 

No, raw_spinlock_t was correct.

Talking of which:

+       struct spinlock lock;

That too should be a raw_spinlock_t.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/