Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Wed Jun 07 2006 - 03:09:03 EST
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:44:31 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So what can we do ?
Well my plan is to keep being sucky, hence
The rule is that sleeping locks need to preserve local IRQs in the
non-contended case. So be it, move on to more pressing things.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/