In article <0C01A29FBAE24448A792F5C68F5EA47D238DE0@nasdaq.ms.ensim.com>,
you write:
>@@ -9,9 +9,15 @@
> */
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>-#define LOCK "lock ; "
>+#define LOCK "\n1:\tlock ; "
>+#define LOCK_ADDR "\n" \
>+ ".section .lock.init,\"a\"\n\t" \
>+ ".align 4\n\t" \
>+ ".long 1b\n" \
>+ ".previous\n"
Why not do:
#define LOCK "1: lock ; \n" \
".section .lock.init,\"a\"\n" \
".align 4\n"\
".long 1b\n"\
".previous\n"
Then you don't need the LOCK_ADDR macro, so most of atomic.h can be
left as is. The assembler doesn't seem to care that there's a section
change between the lock prefix and the instruction that it's locking.
Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 23 2002 - 22:00:12 EST