Re: [patch 2.6.14-rc4] i386: spinlock optimization

"linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>  Somehow, these spin-locks got all screwed up.
> 
>  Given: nobody has the lock. The lock variable is 0.

Unlocked locks have .raw_lock.slock = 1, not 0.
-
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 2.6.14-rc4] i386: spinlock optimization
    • From: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [patch 2.6.14-rc4] i386: spinlock optimization
    • From: Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2.6.14-rc4] i386: spinlock optimization
    • From: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Problems in kernel migration from 2.4 to 2.6+
• Next by Date: Re: 2.6.14-rc4-rt1
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch 2.6.14-rc4] i386: spinlock optimization
• Next by thread: Re: [patch 2.6.14-rc4] i386: spinlock optimization
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]