On 12/22/05, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
thanks once again jesper and yes sorry about shorhands , actually quite busy so ...always in a hurry.
sorry about that.
On 12/21/05, pradeep singh <2500.pradeep@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > You are wrong. Kernel semaphores are, as Matthew Wilcox already
>
if a section of code is written with proper checking/taking of the
lock can of course not execute that secific code section without the
proper locking being done, but you could (this is silly, but you can
do it) simply use a jmp instruction to jump into the middle of the
section, bypassing the code checking the semaphore.
> plz explain.
>
hmm, I guess the [Please: s/r/are/ , s/plz/please/] bit from the
last mail didn't sink in ;-)
thanks once again jesper and yes sorry about shorhands , actually quite busy so ...always in a hurry.
sorry about that.
> thanks a lot :-)
>
You're welcome.
--
Jesper Juhl < jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
--
play the game
