From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:49:21 +0000
Subject: Re: [bug report] dead lock (?) occur on ap325 board
Message-Id: <20090127084920.GA7630@linux-sh.org>
List-Id: <linux-sh.vger.kernel.org>
References: <uprie4cmj.wl%morimoto.kuninori@renesas.com>
In-Reply-To: <uprie4cmj.wl%morimoto.kuninori@renesas.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 05:46:57PM +0900, morimoto.kuninori@renesas.com wrote:
> > Hmm, the !__ex_flag should have handled that case properly, but I wonder
> > if it is negated in the unlock case. Does switching to __res |= __ex_flag
> > and leaving the existing test as-is fix it?
> 
> Sorry difficult English.
> Do you say like this ?
> 
> --------------
>  	__res |= __ex_flag;
>  	if (unlikely(__res <= 0))
> --------------
> 
> Dead lock occur in this case. kernel can not boot.
> 
Ok, I'll debug it a bit more then, thanks.