El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:17:53AM +0100 Christoph Hellwig ha dit:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 07:50:36PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > >use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
> >
> > I think you really meant: "Use mutex
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 07:50:36PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> >use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
>
> I think you really meant: "Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in
> idt77252 driver", since this is a binary
Hi,
On 4/23/07, Eddie C. Dost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
as long as mutexes are not converted to nop when CONFIG_SMP is not
defined (I don't know what current kernels do), this is of course
correct. You need to verify the headerfiles for the above.
Yes, even on UP different threads accessing
hi,
El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:40:19AM +0200 Eddie C. Dost ha dit:
> as long as mutexes are not converted to nop when CONFIG_SMP is not
> defined (I don't know what current kernels do), this is of course
> correct. You need to verify the headerfiles for the above.
i just checked this, neither
Hi,
Please note that the semaphore is used to lock the idt77252 config
tables among multiple users including atmsigd even on single processor
machines. Does this work with mutexes?
Best regards,
Eddie
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 08:55:20AM +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> El Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at
Hi,
as long as mutexes are not converted to nop when CONFIG_SMP is not
defined (I don't know what current kernels do), this is of course
correct. You need to verify the headerfiles for the above.
Regards,
Eddie
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:40:26AM +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> El Mon, Apr 23,
El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:16:08AM +0200 Eddie C. Dost ha dit:
> Please note that the semaphore is used to lock the idt77252 config
> tables among multiple users including atmsigd even on single processor
> machines. Does this work with mutexes?
afaik mutexes have the same behaviour as binary
El Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 07:50:36PM -0400 Kyle Moffett ha dit:
> On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> >use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
>
> I think you really meant: "Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in
> idt77252 driver", since this is a binary
El Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 07:50:36PM -0400 Kyle Moffett ha dit:
On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
I think you really meant: Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in
idt77252 driver, since this is a binary semaphore
El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:16:08AM +0200 Eddie C. Dost ha dit:
Please note that the semaphore is used to lock the idt77252 config
tables among multiple users including atmsigd even on single processor
machines. Does this work with mutexes?
afaik mutexes have the same behaviour as binary
Hi,
Please note that the semaphore is used to lock the idt77252 config
tables among multiple users including atmsigd even on single processor
machines. Does this work with mutexes?
Best regards,
Eddie
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 08:55:20AM +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
El Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at
Hi,
as long as mutexes are not converted to nop when CONFIG_SMP is not
defined (I don't know what current kernels do), this is of course
correct. You need to verify the headerfiles for the above.
Regards,
Eddie
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:40:26AM +0200, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
El Mon, Apr 23,
hi,
El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:40:19AM +0200 Eddie C. Dost ha dit:
as long as mutexes are not converted to nop when CONFIG_SMP is not
defined (I don't know what current kernels do), this is of course
correct. You need to verify the headerfiles for the above.
i just checked this, neither the
Hi,
On 4/23/07, Eddie C. Dost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as long as mutexes are not converted to nop when CONFIG_SMP is not
defined (I don't know what current kernels do), this is of course
correct. You need to verify the headerfiles for the above.
Yes, even on UP different threads accessing
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 07:50:36PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
I think you really meant: Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in
idt77252 driver, since this is a binary semaphore
El Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:17:53AM +0100 Christoph Hellwig ha dit:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 07:50:36PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
I think you really meant: Use mutex instead of
On 4/23/07, Matthias Kaehlcke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
diff --git a/drivers/atm/idt77252.c b/drivers/atm/idt77252.c
index b4b8014..e3cf141 100644
--- a/drivers/atm/idt77252.c
+++
On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
I think you really meant: "Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in
idt77252 driver", since this is a binary semaphore (not a mutex,
which are always binary):
- struct
On Apr 22, 2007, at 17:39:59, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
I think you really meant: Use mutex instead of binary semaphore in
idt77252 driver, since this is a binary semaphore (not a mutex,
which are always binary):
- struct
On 4/23/07, Matthias Kaehlcke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
use spinlock instead of binary mutex in idt77252 driver
Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
diff --git a/drivers/atm/idt77252.c b/drivers/atm/idt77252.c
index b4b8014..e3cf141 100644
--- a/drivers/atm/idt77252.c
+++
20 matches
Mail list logo
