[PATCH] i386: Remove alternative_smp
The .fill causes miscompilations with some binutils version.
Instead just patch the lock prefix in the lock constructs. That is the
majority of the cost and should be good enough.
Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
diff --git a/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h b/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h
index d816c62..d102036 100644
--- a/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h
+++ b/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
#define __raw_spin_lock_string \
"\n1:\t" \
- "lock ; decb %0\n\t" \
+ LOCK_PREFIX " ; decb %0\n\t" \
"jns 3f\n" \
"2:\t" \
"rep;nop\n\t" \
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@
*/
#define __raw_spin_lock_string_flags \
"\n1:\t" \
- "lock ; decb %0\n\t" \
+ LOCK_PREFIX " ; decb %0\n\t" \
"jns 5f\n" \
"2:\t" \
"testl $0x200, %1\n\t" \
@@ -57,15 +57,9 @@
"jmp 4b\n" \
"5:\n\t"
-#define __raw_spin_lock_string_up \
- "\n\tdecb %0"
-
static inline void __raw_spin_lock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
{
- alternative_smp(
- __raw_spin_lock_string,
- __raw_spin_lock_string_up,
- "+m" (lock->slock) : : "memory");
+ asm(__raw_spin_lock_string : "+m" (lock->slock) : : "memory");
}
/*
@@ -76,10 +70,7 @@
#ifndef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
static inline void __raw_spin_lock_flags(raw_spinlock_t *lock, unsigned long flags)
{
- alternative_smp(
- __raw_spin_lock_string_flags,
- __raw_spin_lock_string_up,
- "+m" (lock->slock) : "r" (flags) : "memory");
+ asm(__raw_spin_lock_string_flags : "+m" (lock->slock) : "r" (flags) : "memory");
}
#endif