Re: No locking is needed ... why?

From: BALBIR SINGH (balbir.singh@wipro.com)
Date: Tue Oct 09 2001 - 08:45:59 EST

Next message: bill davidsen: "Re: Context switch times"
Previous message: rwhron@earthlink.net: "[LTP] VFS: brelse: started after 2.4.10-ac7"
In reply to: Rik van Riel: "Re: No locking is needed ... why?"
Next in thread: Rik van Riel: "Re: No locking is needed ... why?"
Reply: Rik van Riel: "Re: No locking is needed ... why?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

>
>
>
>Each CPU has its own data structure here. This means no
>other CPU will touch this queue (they have their own)
>so there is nobody we could ever race against.
>
We would still require locking or interrupt disabling if this data is used
from an interrupt context (due to re-enterency issues), wouldn't we Rik?

Regards,
Balbir

>
>
>regards,
>
>Rik
>

text/plain attachment: Wipro_Disclaimer.txt

-
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: bill davidsen: "Re: Context switch times"
Previous message: rwhron@earthlink.net: "[LTP] VFS: brelse: started after 2.4.10-ac7"
In reply to: Rik van Riel: "Re: No locking is needed ... why?"
Next in thread: Rik van Riel: "Re: No locking is needed ... why?"
Reply: Rik van Riel: "Re: No locking is needed ... why?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 21:00:24 EST