[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.024 / U:4.512 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site