Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261941AbVASWjH (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:39:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261938AbVASWjG (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:39:06 -0500 Received: from peabody.ximian.com ([130.57.169.10]:65484 "EHLO peabody.ximian.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261941AbVASWjE (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:39:04 -0500 Subject: Re: 2.6.10-mm1 hang From: Robert Love To: linux-os@analogic.com Cc: Andrew Morton , Badari Pulavarty , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <1106153215.3577.134.camel@dyn318077bld.beaverton.ibm.com> <20050119133136.7a1c0454.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:40:57 -0500 Message-Id: <1106174457.5907.40.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 613 Lines: 18 On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 17:01 -0500, linux-os wrote: > What would you expect this to do? After the first lock is > obtained, the second MUST fail forever or else the spin-lock > doesn't work. The code, above, just proves that spin-locks > work! He has a four processor machine. Since the lock is local, it is somewhat odd that the other three lock up. Robert Love - 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/