On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:31:31AM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 12:50:39AM -0700, Ken Chen wrote:
> > I ran through the autotest (with bug fix in the test code). It passes
> > the regression tests. I made the following change since last rev:
>
> By removing the spinlock around ring insertion, you've made it possible
> for two events being inserted on different CPUs to end up creating
> inconsistent state, as there is nothing which guarantees that resulting
> event in the ring will be wholely one event or another.
Ignore that, I misread the function it was applied to. -ENEEDCOFFEE. Yes,
that spinlock can go if we're doing cmpxchg().
-ben
--
"Time is of no importance, Mr. President, only life is important."
Don't Email: <[email protected]>.
-
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]
