On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 08:15:28AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > So as Paul mentioned, spin_lock is now a mutex. There is a new
> > raw_spinlock however (simply change the way it is declared, calling
> > conventions are the same) which is used in a very few areas where a
> > traditional spin_lock is truly necessary. This may or may not be one of
> > those times, but I wanted to point it out.
>
> Yeah, I figured that. My main worry has more to do with some fishy
> assumptions the powerpc VM code does regarding what can and cannot
> happen in those locked sections, among other things. I'll have to sit
> and think about it for a little while to convince myself we are ok ...
> or not. Plus we do keep track of various MM related things in per-CPU
> data structures but it looks like Paul already spotted that.
My concern would be that I failed to spot all of them. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
-
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]
