* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > instead? Not that that's really right either, but at least it avoids
> > the _ridiculous_ crap. The real solution is probably to use a
> > spinlock and trylock/unlock.
>
> Or test_and_set_bit(). That's what I've been saying too, only
> differently ;)
>
> But cleaning up the long-standing silly usage of xchg() is a different
> activity from suppressing this recently-added compile warning.
actually, in this case i disagree: the warning here is a canary that
there's something wrong about this code - i.e. gcc is _right_ about
warning us. The warning is also totally harmless - the warning shows us
the suckiness of the code structure - and squashing the warning doesnt
fix that.
So im coal-mine analogies, i disagree with squashing the canary, we
should find and fix the shaft that emits the smelly methane instead ;-)
Ingo
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
