looks good to me. Minor nit: > +" isync\n" > +" isync \n" shouldnt these two be ISYNC_ON_SMP? Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [patch 00/21] mutex subsystem, -V14
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
- Re: [patch 00/21] mutex subsystem, -V14
- From: Joel Schopp <jschopp@austin.ibm.com>
- Re: [patch 00/21] mutex subsystem, -V14
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
- Re: [patch 00/21] mutex subsystem, -V14
- From: Joel Schopp <jschopp@austin.ibm.com>
- Re: [patch 00/21] mutex subsystem, -V14
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
- Re: [patch 00/21] mutex subsystem, -V14
- From: Joel Schopp <jschopp@austin.ibm.com>
- Re: [patch 00/21] mutex subsystem, -V14
- From: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
- PowerPC fastpaths for mutex subsystem
- From: Joel Schopp <jschopp@austin.ibm.com>
- [patch 00/21] mutex subsystem, -V14
- Prev by Date: Re: [rfc][patch] Avoid taking global tasklist_lock for single threadedprocess at getrusage()
- Next by Date: Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6??
- Previous by thread: Re: PowerPC fastpaths for mutex subsystem
- Next by thread: [patch 01/21] mutex subsystem, add atomic_xchg() to all arches
- Index(es):
 |