On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 19:17 +0200, Frédéric Weisbecker wrote: > Ah, I think I've got it. In case of !CONFIG_PREEMPT, the spinlocks of > course don't play > with preemption, making no change reflected in the preempt_count(). > The assumption of preempt_count() = 1 > is then false. D'0h indeed. And I didn't hit that because the last time I build a ! CONFIG_PREEMPT kernel is like many years ago ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|