Re: [patch 2/21] reduced locking in buffer.c
Christoph Hellwig (email@example.com)
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:52:13 +0100
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 10:53:59AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I have discussed it with David - he said it's OK in 2.5, but
> not in 2.4, and he has eyeballed the diff.
> However there's another thing to think about:
> If the architecture implements atomic_inc with spinlocks, this will
> schedule with interrupts off with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, I expect.
> I can fix that with a preempt_disable() in there, but ick.
Is there a reason you can't just use brlocks?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/