Re: [PATCH 03/14] ARM: v6k: remove CPU_32v6K dependencies in asm/spinlock.h

[Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1209 bytes --]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 05:33:14PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> > <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 04:43:52PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> > >> A couple of questions on this:
> > >>
> > >> 1) I notice these spinlock functions are generally marked inline.
> > >>
> > >> Is that likely to happen in modules?  If so, there would be a need to
> > >> do SMP_ON_UP fixups at module load time -- I don't think that's
> > >> currently implemented.
> > >
> > > No one should be using the arch_* spinlocks directly.  The spinlocks
> > > are implemented in out of line code in kernel/spinlock.c
> > 
> > OK--- do think this is something we need a sanity-check for, or does
> > this fall into to a category of bad driver implementation which will
> > get thrown out during peer review?
> 
> Hmm, actually it looks like you can end up with configurations where the
> spinlocks are inlined.
> 
> That means we'll have to get rid of the link-time discarding of the
> .exit sections, and discard them along with the .init sections.

... but only when CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP=y.


Nicolas