Re: [PATCH] only irq-safe atomic ops

From: John Levon (movement@marcelothewonderpenguin.com)
Date: Sat Feb 23 2002 - 17:00:04 EST

Next message: Stephen Lord: "Re: [PATCH] only irq-safe atomic ops"
Previous message: Chris Sykes: "Re: floppy in 2.4.17"
In reply to: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com: "Re: [PATCH] only irq-safe atomic ops"
Next in thread: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com: "Re: [PATCH] only irq-safe atomic ops"
Reply: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com: "Re: [PATCH] only irq-safe atomic ops"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 12:06:48PM -0700, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:

> With preemption this turns into a problem that is easier to solve
> with a lock or by not having per-cpu caches in the first place --

whilst you're correct (pre-emption has made everything harder), there's
not much point moaning about it, since it's in linus' kernel now. So
why bother ?

regards
john

-- 
"Oh dear, more knobs."
	- David Chase
-
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/

Next message: Stephen Lord: "Re: [PATCH] only irq-safe atomic ops"
Previous message: Chris Sykes: "Re: floppy in 2.4.17"
In reply to: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com: "Re: [PATCH] only irq-safe atomic ops"
Next in thread: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com: "Re: [PATCH] only irq-safe atomic ops"
Reply: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com: "Re: [PATCH] only irq-safe atomic ops"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:52 EST