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

From: Jamie Lokier (lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jul 01 2000 - 09:43:17 EDT

Next message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: [PATCH] 2.2.17pre7 VM enhancement Re: I/O performance on 2.4.0-test2"

Previous message: Gregory Maxwell: "Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux"
In reply to: 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"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Are you absolutely sure that broken fixup cause the SMP problems? A
> broken fixup within spinlock might cause hard crashes, continue as if
> the spinlock was acquired???

Quite. What we really need to diagnose this is the broken NWFS object
module and the input files used to create it.

-- Jamie

-
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: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: [PATCH] 2.2.17pre7 VM enhancement Re: I/O performance on 2.4.0-test2"
Previous message: Gregory Maxwell: "Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux"
In reply to: 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"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 10:55:24 EDT