Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] improve spinlock debugging | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 04 Dec 2001 16:39:07 -0500 |
| |
On Tue, 2001-12-04 at 16:25, george anzinger wrote:
> NO. The problem is the first example above. The spin_unlock will down > count, but the spin_lockirq did NOT do the paired up count (been there, > done that). This is where we need the spin_unlock_no_irq_restore.
Your right, I thought too fast. Then we need the proper macros ...
Robert Love
- 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/
|  |