On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 01:27 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:21 am, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > Should there be any locking around this? Or should the value of
> > rq->nr_running be saved to a local variable as in this untested patch?
>
> Very sneaky..
>
> On initial inspection your patch makes complete sense. I see no point in
> adding locking to this function as the accuracy is not critical. Want to give
> your patch a run and then push it to akpm? Thanks!
Okay, I'm testing it now. It took running overnight to hit the problem
before, so I'll let it run until tomorrow before I push it.
> Cheers,
> Con
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |