On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 04:43:32PM +0000, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 04:29:00PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Ralf, Russell, does this work for you guys? > > > > > > Not at all. It creates even more problems for me, with this circular > > > dependency: > > > > Ok. I just reverted it then. > > > > Pls verify that this is all good, and I didn't mess anything up due to the > > manual conflict resolution. > > Thanks, 2ea5814472c3c910aed5c5b60f1f3b1000e353f1 builds again for MIPS. > > If you deciede to put the patch back in after 2.6.19 I'm considering to > replace the local_irq_{save,restore} calls in the various atomic operations > in <asm/{atomic,bitops,system}.h with their raw_* equivalents. > > What I dislike about Alexey's patch is that is finally tries to cast > unsigned long as the data type for the flags into stone. The natural > data type to use on MIPS and several other architectures is a 32-bit > integer - or just a single bit on a stingy day ;-). Time for flags_t > maybe?
Hey, I've even posted RFC about that! IMO, flags_t is way too generic. I can do 1) typedef unsigned long __bitwise__ irq_flags_t; 2) very core locking functions switched to irq_flags_t + additional small patch to keep level of compiler warnings the same 2) conversion to irq_flags_t: can be done slowly, only sparse sees new warnigns 3) irq_flags_t forked and became arch specific type 4) arch maintatiners choose better than "unsigned long" type if they want - 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/