Hello Nicholas,
Just a small comment about syntax. I'm afraid I can't comment much about
the substance of the patch.
Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> writes:
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> index b9ebc3085fb7..182bb9304c79 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -40,16 +40,9 @@
> #endif
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_PPC64) && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
> -#define CLEAR_IO_SYNC (get_paca()->io_sync = 0)
> -#define SYNC_IO do {
> \
> - if (unlikely(get_paca()->io_sync)) { \
> - mb(); \
> - get_paca()->io_sync = 0; \
> - } \
> - } while (0)
> +#define CLEAR_IO_SYNC do { r14_clear_bits(R14_BIT_IO_SYNC); } while(0)
Is there a reason for the do { } while(0) idiom here? If
r14_clear_bits() is an inline function, isn't it a single statement
already?
--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
