[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: BKL removal
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 12:31:13PM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote:
> Unless a developer is relying on the release-on-sleep mechanism or the
> nested-locks-without-deadlock mechanism, there's no reason an instance
> of the BKL can't be replaced with another spinlock.

Um, not true. You can call schedule with the BKL held, not true for a

And see the oft repeated messages on lkml about the spinlock/semaphore
hell that some oses have turned into when they try to do this. Let's
learn from history this time around please.

greg k-h
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 13:22    [W:0.103 / U:4.788 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site