s390: use common bust_spinlocks()

s390 is the only architecture that is using own bust_spinlocks()
variant, while other arch-s seem to be OK with the common
implementation.

Heiko Carstens [1] said he would prefer s390 to use the common
bust_spinlocks() as well:
  I did some code archaeology and this function is unchanged since ~17
  years. When it was introduced it was close to identical to the x86
  variant. All other architectures use the common code variant in the
  meantime. So if we change this I'd prefer that we switch s390 to the
  common code variant as well. Right now I can't see a reason for not
  doing that

This patch removes s390 bust_spinlocks() and drops the weak attribute
from the common bust_spinlocks() version.

[1] lkml.kernel.org/r/20181025062800.GB4037@osiris
Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>

1 files changed, 3 insertions, 3 deletions

diff --git a/lib/bust_spinlocks.c b/lib/bust_spinlocks.c
index ab719495e2cb..8be59f84eaea 100644
--- a/lib/bust_spinlocks.c
+++ b/lib/bust_spinlocks.c
@@ -2,7 +2,8 @@
 /*
  * lib/bust_spinlocks.c
  *
- * Provides a minimal bust_spinlocks for architectures which don't have one of their own.
+ * Provides a minimal bust_spinlocks for architectures which don't
+ * have one of their own.
  *
  * bust_spinlocks() clears any spinlocks which would prevent oops, die(), BUG()
  * and panic() information from reaching the user.
@@ -16,8 +17,7 @@
 #include <linux/vt_kern.h>
 #include <linux/console.h>
 
-
-void __attribute__((weak)) bust_spinlocks(int yes)
+void bust_spinlocks(int yes)
 {
 	if (yes) {
 		++oops_in_progress;