Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:04:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:04:22 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-5-cust12.swa.cable.ntl.com ([80.5.121.12]:10745 "EHLO irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:04:21 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch] tls-2.5.31-C3 From: Alan Cox To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, julliard@winehq.com, ldb@ldb.ods.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) Date: 12 Aug 2002 13:29:27 +0100 Message-Id: <1029155367.16421.163.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 852 Lines: 23 On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 13:55, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On 12 Aug 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > ugh, we do Linux interrupts while in the APM BIOS? > > > > We have to. Most APM bios expects interrupts to be happening. In > > pre-emptive mode we may well even be switching to/from APM BIOS code in > > 2.5 at the moment. I've not looked into that. > > i think that since we hold the APM spinlock (do we always, when calling > into the APM BIOS?), we should not preempt any APM BIOS code. Looking at the 2.5.29 tree I have handy here there is no APM spinlock. I don't have 2.5.30/31 unpacked to check those - 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/