On 1 October 2015 at 22:47, Alexander Shishkin
wrote:
> Mathieu Poirier writes:
>
>> On 30 September 2015 at 05:33, Alexander Shishkin
>> wrote:
>>> Mathieu Poirier writes:
>>>
Calling function 'smp_call_function_single()' to unlock the
tracer and calling it right after to perform the
Mathieu Poirier writes:
> On 30 September 2015 at 05:33, Alexander Shishkin
> wrote:
>> Mathieu Poirier writes:
>>
>>> Calling function 'smp_call_function_single()' to unlock the
>>> tracer and calling it right after to perform the default
>>> initialisation doesn't make sense.
>>>
>>> Moving '
On 30 September 2015 at 05:33, Alexander Shishkin
wrote:
> Mathieu Poirier writes:
>
>> Calling function 'smp_call_function_single()' to unlock the
>> tracer and calling it right after to perform the default
>> initialisation doesn't make sense.
>>
>> Moving 'etm_os_unlock()' just before making t
Mathieu Poirier writes:
> Calling function 'smp_call_function_single()' to unlock the
> tracer and calling it right after to perform the default
> initialisation doesn't make sense.
>
> Moving 'etm_os_unlock()' just before making the default
> initialisation results in the same outcome while savi
Calling function 'smp_call_function_single()' to unlock the
tracer and calling it right after to perform the default
initialisation doesn't make sense.
Moving 'etm_os_unlock()' just before making the default
initialisation results in the same outcome while saving
one call to 'smp_call_function_sin
5 matches
Mail list logo
