Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:52:13 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2/21] reduced locking in buffer.c |
| |
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 10:53:59AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > I have discussed it with David - he said it's OK in 2.5, but > not in 2.4, and he has eyeballed the diff. > > However there's another thing to think about: > > local_irq_disable(); > atomic_inc(); > > If the architecture implements atomic_inc with spinlocks, this will > schedule with interrupts off with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, I expect. > > I can fix that with a preempt_disable() in there, but ick.
Is there a reason you can't just use brlocks? - 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/
| |