Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: David Miller <davem@...>
Cc: <matthew@...>, <mingo@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 7:17 pm

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

(Side note: I'm not claiming this (or it's mirror image (d)) is really any 
better/worse than the current behaviour from a theoretical standpoint, but 
at least the current behaviour is _tested_, which makes it better in 
practice. So if we want to change this, I think we want to change it to 
something that is _obviously_ better).

		Linus
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
IRQF_DISABLED problem, Matthew Wilcox, (Thu Jul 26, 4:13 pm)
Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Jul 26, 4:41 pm)
Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem, David Miller, (Thu Jul 26, 6:23 pm)
Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Jul 26, 7:04 pm)
Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Jul 26, 7:17 pm)
Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem, Arjan van de Ven, (Fri Jul 27, 4:11 pm)
Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem, David Miller, (Fri Jul 27, 4:50 pm)
Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem, David Miller, (Thu Jul 26, 7:14 pm)