Hi Tigran and Pauline:
Thanks for the note. I've been away for a few days, but my colleague
Al Borchers saw Pauline's original posting and subsquently submitted
a patch on Friday. If you haven't seen this yet let me know and I'll
send you a copy directly. Thanks.
--Peter
-- Peter E. Berger Tel: (218) 848-2885 Brimson Laboratories Fax: (218) 848-2433 1549 Hiironen Rd. Email: pberger@brimson.com Brimson, MN 55602> > Hi Pauline, > > yes, I agree with your comment about > cond_wait_interruptible_timeout_irqrestore() not being inlined (and > standard -O2 setting won't allow gcc to inline things otherwise) so it > seems broken - I cc'd Peter Berger to fix it. > > Regards, > Tigran > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Pauline Middelink wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 around 18:47:33 +0100, Tigran Aivazian wrote: > > > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > BTW: CPU flags should always be saved and restored in the same function > > > > - it's not correct to pass the flags to another function and allow that > > > > function to restore them. Breaks on SPARC, apparently. Does Rusty's > > > > doc cover this?? > > > > > > it maybe obvious (definitely is to most) but it may still be worth > > > mentioning that 'passing' flags to inline'd functions is ok, otherwise > > > people would get very confused when they look at > > > __schedule_tail()/reschedule_idle() interaction. > > > > Hmmm, than drivers/usb/serial/digi_acceleport.c > > cond_wait_interruptible_timeout_irqrestore() seems > > suspect. Its static but not explicitly inlined. > > > > Also line 649/650 seems strange to me, shouldn't the > > second one be a normal spinlock() because we know the > > irq's are off? (and not overwrite flags) > > > > Met vriendelijke groet, > > Pauline Middelink
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 21:00:09 EST