Philip Blundell (philb@gnu.org)
Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:58:12 +0100
>I don' t want to think if it could happen a deadlock. The patch is the
>strightforward way to use spinlock. It' s not overkill. Think why don' t
>you use 1 only spinlock all over the kernel and why spinlock spinlocks
>exists in first place.
You said it was "necessary" though, which implies it was fixing a problem
rather than just improving or tidying up code. Is that the case, and if so
what was the problem?
p.
-- To unsubscribe, send mail to: linux-parport-request@torque.net --
-- with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed 30 Dec 1998 - 10:18:10 EST