lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] improve spinlock debugging
From
Date
On Tue, 2001-12-04 at 16:25, george anzinger wrote:

> NO. The problem is the first example above. The spin_unlock will down
> count, but the spin_lockirq did NOT do the paired up count (been there,
> done that). This is where we need the spin_unlock_no_irq_restore.

Your right, I thought too fast. Then we need the proper macros ...

Robert Love

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.116 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site