Re: [PATCH] Important per-cpu fix.

From: Matthew Wilcox (willy@debian.org)
Date: Mon Sep 09 2002 - 07:17:44 EST

Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: [RFC] Multi-path IO in 2.5/2.6 ?"
Previous message: Ingo Molnar: "[patch] CLONE_DETACHED fix, BK-curr"
Next in thread: Rusty Russell: "Re: [PATCH] Important per-cpu fix."
Reply: Rusty Russell: "Re: [PATCH] Important per-cpu fix."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Rusty wrote:
> Yeah, but you can still leave a spinlock uninitialized, and it'll
> work.

If your architecture has load-and-zero as its only atomic primitive,
leaving spinlocks uninitialised will _not_ work ;-)

-- 
Revolutions do not require corporate support.
-
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: Alan Cox: "Re: [RFC] Multi-path IO in 2.5/2.6 ?"
Previous message: Ingo Molnar: "[patch] CLONE_DETACHED fix, BK-curr"
Next in thread: Rusty Russell: "Re: [PATCH] Important per-cpu fix."
Reply: Rusty Russell: "Re: [PATCH] Important per-cpu fix."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:00:16 EST