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

From: Chris Wedgwood (cw@f00f.org)
Date: Fri Jun 30 2000 - 21:00:13 EDT

Next message: Jamie Lokier: "Re: [question] why does pipefs bother to build unique filenames?"

Previous message: Gregory Maxwell: "Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux"
In reply to: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Next in thread: Manfred Spraul: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Next in thread: Rui Sousa: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Reply: Manfred Spraul: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 06:19:49PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

    It looks like Andi Klein and I have tracked it down already.
    It's a bug in gas/ld with relocation records for the .text.lock
    section being created by he spinlock macro.

What binutils is this present in? All of them?

--cw

-
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: Jamie Lokier: "Re: [question] why does pipefs bother to build unique filenames?"
Previous message: Gregory Maxwell: "Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux"
In reply to: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Next in thread: Manfred Spraul: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Next in thread: Rui Sousa: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Reply: Manfred Spraul: "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 - 21:11:02 EDT