On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 02:32:53PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 04/08/2018 02:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 11:58:25PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:08:16PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >>> On 04/06/2018 02:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 02:32:53PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 04/08/2018 02:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 11:58:25PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:08:16PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >>> On 04/06/2018 02:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On 04/08/2018 02:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 11:58:25PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:08:16PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2018 02:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:01:41PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 04/08/2018 02:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 11:58:25PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:08:16PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2018 02:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:01:41PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 11:58:25PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:08:16PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 04/06/2018 02:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:01:41PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > >> On 04/06/2018 12:47 PM, Andrea Parri wrote:
>
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 11:58:25PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:08:16PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 04/06/2018 02:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:01:41PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > >> On 04/06/2018 12:47 PM, Andrea Parri wrote:
>
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:08:16PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 04/06/2018 02:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:01:41PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> On 04/06/2018 12:47 PM, Andrea Parri wrote:
> >>> There appeared to be a certain, recurrent uncertainty concerning
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:08:16PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 04/06/2018 02:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:01:41PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> On 04/06/2018 12:47 PM, Andrea Parri wrote:
> >>> There appeared to be a certain, recurrent uncertainty concerning
On 04/06/2018 02:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:01:41PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 04/06/2018 12:47 PM, Andrea Parri wrote:
>>> There appeared to be a certain, recurrent uncertainty concerning the
>>> semantics of spin_is_locked(), likely a consequence of the
On 04/06/2018 02:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:01:41PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 04/06/2018 12:47 PM, Andrea Parri wrote:
>>> There appeared to be a certain, recurrent uncertainty concerning the
>>> semantics of spin_is_locked(), likely a consequence of the
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:01:41PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 04/06/2018 12:47 PM, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > There appeared to be a certain, recurrent uncertainty concerning the
> > semantics of spin_is_locked(), likely a consequence of the fact that
> > this semantics remains undocumented or
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 02:01:41PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 04/06/2018 12:47 PM, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > There appeared to be a certain, recurrent uncertainty concerning the
> > semantics of spin_is_locked(), likely a consequence of the fact that
> > this semantics remains undocumented or
On 04/06/2018 12:47 PM, Andrea Parri wrote:
> There appeared to be a certain, recurrent uncertainty concerning the
> semantics of spin_is_locked(), likely a consequence of the fact that
> this semantics remains undocumented or that it has been historically
> linked to the (likewise unclear)
On 04/06/2018 12:47 PM, Andrea Parri wrote:
> There appeared to be a certain, recurrent uncertainty concerning the
> semantics of spin_is_locked(), likely a consequence of the fact that
> this semantics remains undocumented or that it has been historically
> linked to the (likewise unclear)
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 09:47:39PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> There appeared to be a certain, recurrent uncertainty concerning the
> semantics of spin_is_locked(), likely a consequence of the fact that
> this semantics remains undocumented or that it has been historically
> linked to the
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 09:47:39PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> There appeared to be a certain, recurrent uncertainty concerning the
> semantics of spin_is_locked(), likely a consequence of the fact that
> this semantics remains undocumented or that it has been historically
> linked to the
There appeared to be a certain, recurrent uncertainty concerning the
semantics of spin_is_locked(), likely a consequence of the fact that
this semantics remains undocumented or that it has been historically
linked to the (likewise unclear) semantics of spin_unlock_wait().
A recent auditing [1] of
There appeared to be a certain, recurrent uncertainty concerning the
semantics of spin_is_locked(), likely a consequence of the fact that
this semantics remains undocumented or that it has been historically
linked to the (likewise unclear) semantics of spin_unlock_wait().
A recent auditing [1] of
18 matches
Mail list logo
