From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265480AbTLHQj4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:39:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265511AbTLHQjz (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:39:55 -0500 Received: from mail3.noris.net ([62.128.1.28]:45745 "EHLO mail3.noris.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265480AbTLHQcW (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:32:22 -0500 From: Matthias Urlichs Organization: {M:U} To: Rob Love Subject: Re: question about preempt_disable() Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:31:27 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <000d01c3b6dd$30ab34a0$8a04a943@bananacabana> <1070250821.1158.45.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1070250821.1158.45.camel@localhost> X-Face: xyzzy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200312010703.19113@smurf.noris.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Rob Love wrote: > Further, on uniprocessor systems, we don't have deadlocks so it is the > preempt_disable() that actually ensures concurrency is prevented in the > critical region. > We don't have _spin_locks. -- Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | smurf@debian.org Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.debian.net - - I don't care how poor and inefficient a country is; they like to run their own business. I know men that would make my wife a better husband than I am; but, darn it, I'm not going to give her to 'em. -- Will Rogers