RE: [Infiniband-general] Getting an Infiniband access layer in the linux kernel

["King, Steven R" <steven.r.king _at_ xxxxxxxxx>]

We just use the kernel's spin_lock_irqsave(), so I don't know what
you're talking about.

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg KH [mailto:greg _at_ kroah.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 10:55 AM
To: King, Steven R; linux-kernel _at_ vger.kernel.org
Cc: infiniband-general _at_ lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Infiniband-general] Getting an Infiniband access layer in
the linux kernel


On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 10:27:54AM -0800, King, Steven R wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> What exactly is wrong with spinlock?  Far as I know, it's been working
> bug-free on a variety of platforms for quite some time now.  The other
> abstractions such as atomic_t are for platform portability.

Again, compare them to the current kernel spinlocks and try to realize
why your implementation of spinlock_irqsave() will not work on all
platforms.

Come on, just use the kernel versions, there is no need to reinvent the
wheel all of the time, it just wastes everyones time (including mine...)

thanks,

greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/