From: Ingo Molnar
...
> So why not trylock and time out here after a few seconds,
> instead of indefinitely supressing some potentially vital
> output due to some other CPU crashing/locking with the lock
> held?
I've used that for status requests that usually lock a table
to get a consistent
From: Ingo Molnar
...
So why not trylock and time out here after a few seconds,
instead of indefinitely supressing some potentially vital
output due to some other CPU crashing/locking with the lock
held?
I've used that for status requests that usually lock a table
to get a consistent view.
If
* Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
> > +static arch_spinlock_t die_lock = __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
> > +static int die_owner = -1;
> > +static unsigned int die_nest_count;
> > +
> > +unsigned long __die_spin_lock_irqsave(void)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
* Anton Blanchard wrote:
> +static arch_spinlock_t die_lock = __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
> +static int die_owner = -1;
> +static unsigned int die_nest_count;
> +
> +unsigned long __die_spin_lock_irqsave(void)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + /* racy, but better
* Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
* Anton Blanchard an...@samba.org wrote:
+static arch_spinlock_t die_lock = __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
+static int die_owner = -1;
+static unsigned int die_nest_count;
+
+unsigned long __die_spin_lock_irqsave(void)
+{
+ unsigned long
* Anton Blanchard an...@samba.org wrote:
+static arch_spinlock_t die_lock = __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
+static int die_owner = -1;
+static unsigned int die_nest_count;
+
+unsigned long __die_spin_lock_irqsave(void)
+{
+ unsigned long flags;
+ int cpu;
+
+ /* racy, but
6 matches
Mail list logo