On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > 2) The unlock sequence is not anymore inlined. It appears twice or three times > in the kernel. Ahh, that (2) is the killer, I'd totally forgotten. Ok, the patch is valid, no arguments. Linus - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- References:
- i386 spinlock fairness: bizarre test results
- From: Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]>
- Re: i386 spinlock fairness: bizarre test results
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: i386 spinlock fairness: bizarre test results
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
- i386 spinlock fairness: bizarre test results
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/1] 2.6.14-rc3 x86: COMMAND_LINE_SIZE
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
- Index(es):
 |