RE: [Infiniband-general] Getting an Infiniband access layer in the linux kernel

[Raj, Ashok]

>linux kernel
>
>On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 10:27:54AM -0800, King, Steven R wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>> What exactly is wrong with spinlock?  Far as I know, it's been
working
>> bug-free on a variety of platforms for quite some time now.  The
other
>> abstractions such as atomic_t are for platform portability.
>
>Again, compare them to the current kernel spinlocks and try to realize
>why your implementation of spinlock_irqsave() will not work on all
>platforms.

Humm... think the spin_lock macros used are the _ones_ that is defined
in the linux kernel, the other version (cl_spin_lock) is just a
wrapper... there is some precedence in the current linux code base that
does the same kind of wrapper thingies... , but iam sure no one is *so*
excited about *that* code anyway, so I will keep shut!


>
>Come on, just use the kernel versions, there is no need to reinvent the
>wheel all of the time, it just wastes everyones time (including
mine...)
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/