On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 10:31 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > I still don't think where is the suckage in just not hard-enabling in > the mutex debug code... If the mutex debugging code is hard-enabling interrupts before init_IRQ() ever got called, that's just broken. Fixing that can hardly be called 'suckage'. -- dwmw2 - 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: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- References:
- 2.6.18 -mm merge plans
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
- 2.6.18 -mm merge plans
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] updated reiser4 - reduced cpu usage for writes by writing more than 4k at a time (has implications for generic write code and eventually for the IO layer)
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop
- Previous by thread: Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- Next by thread: Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- Index(es):
 |