|To:||Ralf Baechle <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH 2.6] fix mips atomic_lock declaration|
|From:||Peter Buckingham <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:24:52 -0700|
|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]|