[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:0.076 / U:6.912 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site