On 08/06/14 23:56, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h >> index 3f2867f..485d5dc 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h >> +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h >> @@ -197,7 +197,8 @@ static inline void do_raw_spin_unlock(raw_spinlock_t >> *lock) __releases(lock) >> _raw_spin_lock_nest_lock(lock, &(nest_lock)->dep_map); \ >> } while (0) >> #else >> -# define raw_spin_lock_nested(lock, subclass) >> _raw_spin_lock(lock) >> +# define raw_spin_lock_nested(lock, subclass) \ >> + ((void)(subclass), _raw_spin_lock(lock)) >> # define raw_spin_lock_nest_lock(lock, nest_lock) _raw_spin_lock(lock) >> #endif >> > > I think it would be nice to comment why we're evaluating the subclass when > CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=n so that nobody comes along and unknowingly > changes it back. > > Thanks for posting the updated version and keeping at it!
This morning I received an e-mail from Wu Fengguang reporting that this patch breaks the build for CONFIG_SMP=n. I will post a third version. Bart. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
