[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9810cff90802242221x2f16dc79k634cecf2c1cee41e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:21:07 -0800
From: "Bill Huey (hui)" <bill.huey@...il.com>
To: gregory.haskins@...il.com
Cc: "Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>,
"Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@...ell.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kevin@...man.org, cminyard@...sta.com, dsingleton@...sta.com,
dwalker@...sta.com, npiggin@...e.de, dsaxena@...xity.net,
ak@...e.de, gregkh@...e.de, sdietrich@...ell.com,
pmorreale@...ell.com, mkohari@...ell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH [RT] 11/14] optimize the !printk fastpath through the lock acquisition
[repost with all folks CCed]
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Gregory Haskins
<gregory.haskins.ml@...il.com> wrote:
> Are you saying that the modified logic that I introduced is broken? Or
> that the original use of the might_sleep() annotation inside this
> function is broken?
It's probably safe to use, but it's not what its original purpose was
and you should use another function/macro. This is an annotation issue
and your use of it is inconsistent with how it's used in voluntary
preempt. I mentioned it before in a previous post. Folks will correct
me if I'm wrong but you should use another macro or function.
bill
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists