Re: Linux spin_unlock debate (fwd)

Jamie Lokier (lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk)
Wed, 26 Apr 2000 10:26:13 +0200

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: sat: "kernel debugger"
Previous message: Graham Stoney: "Re: [PATCH] Generic dead function optimisation"

Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> > Not every i486 and i386 MP was weakly ordered.
> > Most weren't.
> > A few were.
> > Intel had no control over which was and which wasn't,
> > because everything was at the mercy of the system integrator.
>
> The ones that were weakly ordered probably didn't match the Intel MP boot
> spec either and are unlikely to ever be supported. Not because it's not
> doable, but since it's been 5+ years and no one's cared enough to do it
> yet.

That's fine, but please include a comment near the new version of
spin_unlock to this effect.

thanks,
-- Jamie

-
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.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: sat: "kernel debugger"
Previous message: Graham Stoney: "Re: [PATCH] Generic dead function optimisation"