From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262429AbTFORBZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:01:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262430AbTFORBY (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:01:24 -0400 Received: from imladris.demon.co.uk ([193.237.130.41]:13440 "EHLO lapdancer.baythorne.internal") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262429AbTFORBS (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:01:18 -0400 Subject: Re: bad: scheduling while atomic! From: David Woodhouse To: Russell King Cc: Linux Kernel List In-Reply-To: <20030615142950.A32102@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20030615142950.A32102@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1055697278.1244.19.camel@lapdancer.baythorne.internal> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5.dwmw2) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:14:38 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2003-06-15 at 14:29, Russell King wrote: > It would be useful if we could balance the spin_locks with the > spin_unlocks. 8) I can see how that could be considered appropriate. There are a handful of other such trivia in CVS which want to go to Linus shortly -- I assume that includes your afs partitioning fix? -- dwmw2