> At some point in the past, Peter Breuer's attribution was removed from:
>>>>> Here's a before-breakfast implementation of a recursive spinlock. That
>>>>> is, the same thread can "take" the spinlock repeatedly.
>
> On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 09:30:17AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>>>> Why?
>
> On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 18:35, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>>> netconsole.
>
> On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 06:49:04PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> not really.
>> the netconsole issue is tricky and recursive, but recursive locks aren't
>> the solution; that would require a rewrite of the network drivers. It's
>> far easier to solve it by moving the debug printk's instead.
>
> Yes, there are better ways to fix it. But AIUI this is why some people
> want it (the rest of us just don't want messy locking semantics around).
Right ... to me this just seems to create confusing code for no really
good reason that I can see right now.
M.
-
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/