Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> George Anzinger wrote:
> >
> > The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
> > the face of it, way off. Firstly the protected area is no longer
> > protected which could lead to undefined errors/ crashes and secondly,
> > any future use of
Andrew Morton wrote:
George Anzinger wrote:
The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
the face of it, way off. Firstly the protected area is no longer
protected which could lead to undefined errors/ crashes and secondly,
any future use of spinlocks to
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> George Anzinger wrote:
> >
> > The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
> > the face of it, way off. Firstly the protected area is no longer
> > protected which could lead to undefined errors/ crashes and secondly,
> >
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George Anzinger wrote:
The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
the face of it, way off. Firstly the protected area is no longer
protected which could lead to undefined errors/ crashes and secondly,
any future use
George Anzinger wrote:
>
> The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
> the face of it, way off. Firstly the protected area is no longer
> protected which could lead to undefined errors/ crashes and secondly,
> any future use of spinlocks to control preemption could
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:15:54 -0800,
George Anzinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
>the face of it, way off.
Normally it would be, but these are NMI and panic messages. The system
is pretty dead at that point, getting the
The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
the face of it, way off. Firstly the protected area is no longer
protected which could lead to undefined errors/ crashes and secondly,
any future use of spinlocks to control preemption could have a lot of
trouble with this,
The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
the face of it, way off. Firstly the protected area is no longer
protected which could lead to undefined errors/ crashes and secondly,
any future use of spinlocks to control preemption could have a lot of
trouble with this,
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:15:54 -0800,
George Anzinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
the face of it, way off.
Normally it would be, but these are NMI and panic messages. The system
is pretty dead at that point, getting the message
George Anzinger wrote:
The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
the face of it, way off. Firstly the protected area is no longer
protected which could lead to undefined errors/ crashes and secondly,
any future use of spinlocks to control preemption could have a
10 matches
Mail list logo
