[PATCH 2/2] S390: Test if lock is free before using atomic instruction in spin-lock.

[Torvald Riegel]

On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 18:08 +0100, Stefan Liebler wrote:
> > What is your suggestion, how to proceed with the volatile int type in
> > conjunction with the atomic-macros?

Good catch re volatile.  It should not be volatile, which is consistent
with how we do atomics elsewhere.  We shouldn't change the user-facing
type, but should cast to non-volatile internally.

> This patch is not needed anymore as I've posted an adjusted generic 
> spinlock code:
> [PATCH 1/2] Optimize generic spinlock code and use C11 like atomic macros.
> https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-12/msg00617.html
> 
> [PATCH 2/2] S390: Use generic spinlock code.
> https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-12/msg00618.html
> 
> Please have a look.

I'll do.  Thanks.