:40 PM
> To: Volker Lendecke
> Cc: Ralf G. R. Bergs; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Samba and spinlocks on Linux (was Re: REPOST: Meaning of
> "tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:50:50AM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> >
> >
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:50:50AM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
>
> P.S: I might be wrong, but I'm not sure whether the spinlock code ever actually
> worked. Jeremy?
Yes they did work and were tested at one stage, but bit-rot may
have occurred since then.
Jeremy.
On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:50:50 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
[...]
>you do not have a *very* good reason to enable them, could you please retry
>without spinlocks?
Ok, I'm just recompiling Samba without spinlock support.
Obviously I have to wait until this night so that the fileserver becomes less
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:21:15AM +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
> I guess I should have defined CONFIG_RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK when compiling my
> kernel since I also configured Samba with "--with-spinlocks":
Ok, this might explain it. Spinlocks are definitely a less tested part of the
code. I h
