![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 04 June 2006 11:08, Peter Williams wrote:
>> 3. Thanks to suggestions from Con Kolivas with respect to alternative
>> methods to reduce the possibility of a task being starved of CPU while
>> holding an important system resource, enforcement of caps is now
>> quite strict. However, there will still be occasions where caps may be
>> exceeded due to this mechanism vetoing enforcement.
>
> Transcription bug here:
>
>> int fastcall __sched mutex_lock_interruptible(struct mutex *lock)
>> {
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> might_sleep();
>> return __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval
>> (&lock->count, __mutex_lock_interruptible_slowpath);
>
> should be ret =
How embarrassing. I wonder why I didn't notice an "unreachable code"
warning here?
Thanks
Peter
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
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: 2006-06-04 06:35 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||