Oh crap... I missed this little detail before sending my previous
message.
> Use this instead (or rather, in _addition_ to the patch David suggested).
^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
Is it "instead of" or is it "in addition to"?
I did the "instead of". I don't have David's original patch on hand.
Anyone with the COMPLETE patch?
> It fixes the problem at a negligible cost in size, but I much prefer
> losing a few bytes of memory than to have different code for SMP or not
> SMP.
>
> Linus
>
> ----
> --- v2.1.114/linux/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h Mon Aug 3 17:48:28 1998
> +++ linux/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h Mon Aug 3 23:16:10 1998
> @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@
> /*
> * Your basic spinlocks, allowing only a single CPU anywhere
> */
> -typedef struct { } spinlock_t;
> -#define SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED { }
> +typedef struct { int gcc_is_bugggy; } spinlock_t;
> +#define SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED { 0 }
>
> #define spin_lock_init(lock) do { } while(0)
> #define spin_lock(lock) do { } while(0)
Mike
-- Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@WittsEnd.com (The Mad Wizard) | (770) 925-8248 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html