Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:17:03 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: BKL removal |
| |
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 12:31:13PM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote: > Unless a developer is relying on the release-on-sleep mechanism or the > nested-locks-without-deadlock mechanism, there's no reason an instance > of the BKL can't be replaced with another spinlock.
Um, not true. You can call schedule with the BKL held, not true for a spinlock.
And see the oft repeated messages on lkml about the spinlock/semaphore hell that some oses have turned into when they try to do this. Let's learn from history this time around please.
greg k-h - 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/
| |