| To: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 2.6] fix mips atomic_lock declaration |
| From: | Peter Buckingham <peter@pantasys.com> |
| Date: | Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:24:52 -0700 |
| Cc: | linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <20040914002237.GA21739@linux-mips.org> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <41462025.9070607@pantasys.com> <20040914002237.GA21739@linux-mips.org> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040820 Debian/1.7.2-4 |
Ralf Baechle wrote: No. atomic_lock is intentionally undefined, so this patch seems very broken. if i don't change it to static it won't compile correctly. so obviously i don't get something. it seems that the bcm1250 needs atomic_lock to be defined for the fall through case for smp. either that or i need to figure out how to write the assemble code for the SB1 case... what do you think needs to be done? peter |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2.6] fix mips atomic_lock declaration, Ralf Baechle |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | why gcc 2.95.3 generate different result with option -mips2 and -mips3 for the same code, glame |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2.6] fix mips atomic_lock declaration, Ralf Baechle |
| Next by Thread: | why gcc 2.95.3 generate different result with option -mips2 and -mips3 for the same code, glame |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |