lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: spin_locks without smp.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 12:42:34PM +0100, Maciej Soltysiak wrote:
>>> Which version should be practiced? i thought spinlocks are irrelevant
>>> without SMP so we should use #ifdef to shorten the execution path.

On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 11:45, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Buggy on preempt. Remove the #ifdef

On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 01:23:56PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> And render the driver unusable. Very clever. How about understanding *why*
> something was done first 8)


It's hard to see offhand (esp. w/o the hw) why increasing the
preempt_count temporarily would render it unusable. It looks like
there are deeper issues here from what you're telling me. I'll go
regroup and attempt to form some intelligent questions from your
other response.


Thanks,
Bill
-
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: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.043 / U:10.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site