| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Both __kfifo_put() and __kfifo_get() have header comments stating that if
there is but one concurrent reader and one concurrent writer, locking is not
necessary. This is almost the case, but a couple of memory barriers are
needed. Another option would be to change the header comments to remove the
bit about locking not being needed, and to change the those callers who
currently don't use locking to add the required locking. The attachment
analyzes this approach, but the patch below seems simpler.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Stelian Pop <stelian@popies.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- added typedef unsigned int __nocast gfp_t;
- replaced __nocast uses for gfp flags with gfp_t - it gives exactly
the same warnings as far as sparse is concerned, doesn't change
generated code (from gcc point of view we replaced unsigned int with
typedef) and documents what's going on far better.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
|
|
|
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.
Let it rip!
|
