> To test this theory, could you try the patch below, does this fix your > hangs too?
Not tried yet, but obviously it does, since it's a superset of the previous fix. I could try without the smb_mb(), but see below. > This change causes the memory access of the "easy" spin-loop portion > to be more agressive: after the REP; NOP we'd not do the 'easy-loop' > with a simple CMPB, but we'd re-attempt the atomic op. It looks as if this is going to overflow of the lock counter, no? Miklos - 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/
