On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:17:04AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> We already have sufficient locking primitives to get this right. Let's fix
> cpufreq locking rather than introduce complex new primitives which we hope
> will work in the presence of the existing mess.
>
> Step 1: remove all mention of lock_cpu_hotplug() from cpufreq.
> Step 2: work out what data needs to be locked, and how.
> Step 3: implement.
this is what I planned to do weeks ago when this mess first blew up.
I even went as far as sending Linus a patch for (1).
He seemed really gung-ho about trying to fix up the current mess though,
and with each incarnation since, I've been convinced we're making
the problem worse rather than really improving anything.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
