Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 04 June 2006 11:08, Peter Williams wrote:
>> 3. Thanks to suggestions from Con Kolivas with respect to alternative
>> methods to reduce the possibility of a task being starved of CPU while
>> holding an important system resource, enforcement of caps is now
>> quite strict. However, there will still be occasions where caps may be
>> exceeded due to this mechanism vetoing enforcement.
>
> Transcription bug here:
>
>> int fastcall __sched mutex_lock_interruptible(struct mutex *lock)
>> {
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> might_sleep();
>> return __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval
>> (&lock->count, __mutex_lock_interruptible_slowpath);
>
> should be ret =
How embarrassing. I wonder why I didn't notice an "unreachable code"
warning here?
Thanks
Peter
--
Peter Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
