On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:51:21AM +0300, Vitaly Bordug wrote: > Even that might be not enough - we may have simultaneous call of this func > in non-smp case...
Do you really think that every piece of code that uses spinlocks in the kernel is broken on non-SMP? > I was thinking of some kind of refcount, so one that is going to issue CPM > command, must do say pq_cpmp_get() and another driver won't be able to > mangle with cpcr while it's not done with previous request. How on earth are you going to effect mutual exclusion using reference counting? -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
