Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:22:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:22:38 -0400 Received: from et-gw.etinc.com ([207.252.1.2]:59404 "EHLO et-gw.etinc.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:22:25 -0400 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010418182619.0364e1d0@mail.etinc.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:44:02 -0400 To: Matti Aarnio From: Dennis Subject: Re: SMP in 2.4 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20010418210546.W805@mea-ext.zmailer.org> In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010418110702.03850d20@mail.etinc.com> <20010418211208.A1140@villain.home.ems.chel.su> <5.0.2.1.0.20010418110702.03850d20@mail.etinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At 02:05 PM 04/18/2001, Matti Aarnio wrote: >On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 11:08:22AM -0400, Dennis wrote: > > Does 2.4 have something similar to spl levels or does it still require the > > ridiculous MS-DOSish spin-locks to protect every bit of code? > > Lets see -- (besides of MSDOS not having any sort of spinlocks), the > spl() is something out of VAX series of machines, and it really works > by presuming that there is some sort of priority leveling among irq > sources. I was referring to the infamous CLI/STI combinations that are more analogous to spinlocks than anything you are talking about. spl levels are clean and transparent and have been doing a very nice job in helping to avoid race conditions in real unix systems for quite some time now. db - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/