Re: 2.4 mm trouble [possible lru race]

From: Daniel Phillips (phillips@arcor.de)
Date: Tue Oct 01 2002 - 12:10:20 EST

Next message: Jeff Garzik: "Re: [PATCH] pcnet32 cable status check"
Previous message: Jeff Dike: "Re: [uml-devel] uml-patch-2.5.39"
In reply to: Rik van Riel: "Re: 2.4 mm trouble [possible lru race]"
Next in thread: Jens Axboe: "Re: 2.4 mm trouble [possible lru race]"
Reply: Jens Axboe: "Re: 2.4 mm trouble [possible lru race]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tuesday 01 October 2002 18:56, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Tuesday 01 October 2002 16:20, Richard.Zidlicky@stud.informatik.uni-erlangen.de wrote:
>
> > > no preempt or anything fancy, m68k vanila 2.4.19 (well almost).
> >
> > Vanilla would be CONFIG_SMP=y, is that what you have?
>
> Somehow I doubt Linux supports m68k SMP machines ;)

CONFIG_SMP=y works perfectly well on single cpu machines - it forces
the spinlocks to actually exist. It's not supposed to change any
behaviour, but you never know. Behaviour is obviously changing here.

-- 
Daniel
-
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: Jeff Garzik: "Re: [PATCH] pcnet32 cable status check"
Previous message: Jeff Dike: "Re: [uml-devel] uml-patch-2.5.39"
In reply to: Rik van Riel: "Re: 2.4 mm trouble [possible lru race]"
Next in thread: Jens Axboe: "Re: 2.4 mm trouble [possible lru race]"
Reply: Jens Axboe: "Re: 2.4 mm trouble [possible lru race]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:27 EST