Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | [GIT pull] locking fixes for 4.20 | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Date | Sun, 11 Nov 2018 09:11:07 +0100 |
| |
Linus,
please pull the latest locking-urgent-for-linus git tree from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git locking-urgent-for-linus
A single fix for a build fail with CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES=y in the qspinlock code.
Thanks,
tglx
------------------> Peter Zijlstra (1): x86/qspinlock: Fix compile error
arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h | 13 ++++++++----- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h index 87623c6b13db..bd5ac6cc37db 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h @@ -13,12 +13,15 @@ #define queued_fetch_set_pending_acquire queued_fetch_set_pending_acquire static __always_inline u32 queued_fetch_set_pending_acquire(struct qspinlock *lock) { - u32 val = 0; - - if (GEN_BINARY_RMWcc(LOCK_PREFIX "btsl", lock->val.counter, c, - "I", _Q_PENDING_OFFSET)) - val |= _Q_PENDING_VAL; + u32 val; + /* + * We can't use GEN_BINARY_RMWcc() inside an if() stmt because asm goto + * and CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES=y results in a label inside a + * statement expression, which GCC doesn't like. + */ + val = GEN_BINARY_RMWcc(LOCK_PREFIX "btsl", lock->val.counter, c, + "I", _Q_PENDING_OFFSET) * _Q_PENDING_VAL; val |= atomic_read(&lock->val) & ~_Q_PENDING_MASK; return val;
| |