Re: [PATCH] Important per-cpu fix.

From: Rusty Russell (rusty@rustcorp.com.au)
Date: Mon Sep 09 2002 - 18:24:56 EST

Next message: Samium Gromoff: "[2.5] DAC960"
Previous message: Daniel Phillips: "Re: Question about pseudo filesystems"
In reply to: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [PATCH] Important per-cpu fix."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In message <20020909131744.G10583@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> you write:
> Rusty wrote:
> > Yeah, but you can still leave a spinlock uninitialized, and it'll
> > work.
>
> If your architecture has load-and-zero as its only atomic primitive,
> leaving spinlocks uninitialised will _not_ work ;-)

<sigh>

Context: static initializers. ie. you can use dynamic initialization
on your spinlocks.

Rusty.

--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
-
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/

Next message: Samium Gromoff: "[2.5] DAC960"
Previous message: Daniel Phillips: "Re: Question about pseudo filesystems"
In reply to: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [PATCH] Important per-cpu fix."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:00:20 EST