On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, bert hubert wrote:
>
> > A construct like this was suggested for use in swsusp too to make sure that
> > only *one* request is outstanding for a controler. This was also mentioned
> > to be the unclean way and that there are taskfile interfaces which are
> > cleaner.
[snip]
> Ok so at event [1] we have a ->handler set on cpu0 so we pass that check.
> Then cpu1 acquires ide_lock and NULLs it out. cpu0 blocks on the lock in
> ide_set_handler and when cpu1 releases it it re-assigns ->handler. What
> happens then?
Skip that, i forgot swsusp doesn't do SMP.
Zwane
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:43 EST