Re: lock, mutex etc.

Chris Wedgwood (chris@cybernet.co.nz)
Wed, 22 Jul 1998 03:47:09 +1200

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: kwrohrer@ce.mediaone.net: "Re: poll/select timout accuracy"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] New phys_addr() syscall"
Next in thread: Inaky Perez Gonzalez: "Re: [PATCH] New phys_addr() syscall"
Reply: Inaky Perez Gonzalez: "Re: [PATCH] New phys_addr() syscall"

On Tue, Jul 21, 1998 at 06:17:17AM -0700, Michael Liao wrote:
>
> At any time, there is only *ONE* process(or thread) in kernel. Linux
> have a long way to each really SMP-kernel.

Umm... for 2.1.x on an SMP machine, you can have all processors in the
kernel in theory...

-cw

-
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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

Next message: kwrohrer@ce.mediaone.net: "Re: poll/select timout accuracy"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] New phys_addr() syscall"
Next in thread: Inaky Perez Gonzalez: "Re: [PATCH] New phys_addr() syscall"
Reply: Inaky Perez Gonzalez: "Re: [PATCH] New phys_addr() syscall"