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:0.042 / U:0.280 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site