On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 11:46 -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:27:55 -0700 > > > >From 2.6.13-rc4 this hunk > > > > +#else > > +# define rt_hash_lock_addr(slot) NULL > > +# define rt_hash_lock_init() > > +#endif > > > > Doesn't work with the following, > > > > + spin_unlock(rt_hash_lock_addr(i)); > > > > > > Cause your spin locking a NULL .. I would give a patch, but I'm not sure > > what should be done in this case.. > > That spinlock debugging code is such a pain in the butt, > nothing at all should be happening with spinlocks on > a non-SMP build. > > We should just change the route.c ifdef to check for > CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK as well as CONFIG_SMP, in order > to fix this.
The ifdef that switched between the two rt_hash_lock_addr() switched on for CONFIG_SMP or CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK . I was compiling UP , so I didn't get either. Seems like you'll need to have an rt_hash_lock(slot) that replaces the spin_lock calls .. Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
