At some point in the past, Peter Breuer's attribution was removed from:
>>>> Here's a before-breakfast implementation of a recursive spinlock. That
>>>> is, the same thread can "take" the spinlock repeatedly.
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 09:30:17AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>>> Why?
On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 18:35, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> netconsole.
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 06:49:04PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> not really.
> the netconsole issue is tricky and recursive, but recursive locks aren't
> the solution; that would require a rewrite of the network drivers. It's
> far easier to solve it by moving the debug printk's instead.
Yes, there are better ways to fix it. But AIUI this is why some people
want it (the rest of us just don't want messy locking semantics around).
-- wli
-
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 : Fri May 23 2003 - 22:00:31 EST