[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: BKL removal
    On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 12:31:13PM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote:
    > Unless a developer is relying on the release-on-sleep mechanism or the
    > nested-locks-without-deadlock mechanism, there's no reason an instance
    > of the BKL can't be replaced with another spinlock.

    Um, not true. You can call schedule with the BKL held, not true for a

    And see the oft repeated messages on lkml about the spinlock/semaphore
    hell that some oses have turned into when they try to do this. Let's
    learn from history this time around please.

    greg k-h
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.022 / U:3.428 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site