Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 18 May 2003 10:14:13 -0700 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: recursive spinlocks. Shoot. |
| |
--William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote (on Sunday, May 18, 2003 09:54:45 -0700):
> 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).
Right ... to me this just seems to create confusing code for no really good reason that I can see right now.
M.
- 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/
| |