Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules

From: Jamie Lokier (lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jul 05 2000 - 17:45:15 EST

Next message: Chuck Lever: "Re: BK performance tip (22x faster)"
Previous message: Richard Gooch: "Re: BK performance tip (22x faster)"
In reply to: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Next in thread: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Reply: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Consider this problem report to be potentially "bogus" since it was
> apparently isolated to OpenLinux 2.4 and does not seem to affect other
> Linux versions. The spinlocks aren't broken generally, just in the
> OpenLinux 2.4 case.

It would still be good to know the actual version of binutils that
breaks -- or is it only the binaries and not the corresponding binutils
source that's broken?

-- Jamie

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Chuck Lever: "Re: BK performance tip (22x faster)"
Previous message: Richard Gooch: "Re: BK performance tip (22x faster)"
In reply to: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Next in thread: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Reply: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 21:00:17 EST