Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules

From: Rui Sousa (rsousa@grad.physics.sunysb.edu)
Date: Fri Jun 30 2000 - 20:36:57 EDT

Next message: Pavel Machek: "Re: Patented algorithms in kernel"

Previous message: Benno Senoner: "Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux"
In reply to: Jeff V. Merkey: "spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Next in thread: Chris Lattner: "RE: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
...
>
> Compiler Switches
> -----------------
>
> -D__SMP__ -DMODVERSIONS -DMODULE -D__KERNEL__ -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes
> -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strength-reduce -pipe -m386 -DCPU=386
> -I/usr/src/linux/include -c
>
> Linker Switches
> ---------------
>
> -m elf_i386 -Map nwfs.map -r -o
>

These should be exactly the same as the ones used to compile the kernel...

Rui Sousa

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Pavel Machek: "Re: Patented algorithms in kernel"
Previous message: Benno Senoner: "Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux"
In reply to: Jeff V. Merkey: "spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Next in thread: Chris Lattner: "RE: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 30 2000 - 20:41:57 EDT