Re: BKL removal

Greg KH (greg@kroah.com)
Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:17:03 -0700


On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 12:31:13PM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote:
> Unless a developer is relying on the release-on-sleep mechanism or the
> nested-locks-without-deadlock mechanism, there's no reason an instance
> of the BKL can't be replaced with another spinlock.

Um, not true. You can call schedule with the BKL held, not true for a
spinlock.

And see the oft repeated messages on lkml about the spinlock/semaphore
hell that some oses have turned into when they try to do this. Let's
learn from history this time around please.

greg k-h
-
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/