lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    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
    spinlock.

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