On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 16:37 +0100, Joachim Fenkes wrote: > + u64 flags;
> - spin_lock(&shca_list_lock); > + spin_lock_irqsave(&shca_list_lock, flags); That's wrong and I think will give a warning on all machines where u64 != unsigned long. Might not particularly matter in this case. Also, generally it seems wrong to say "fix lockdep failure" when the patch really fixes a bug that lockdep happened to find. johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
