On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 11:34:44PM +0100, Paul Kranenburg wrote:

 > The _simple_lock() function should not continue at spllock() while
 > actually spinning on the __cpu_simple_lock. It's perfectly valid to try
 > and grab a simple lock at, say, base priority as long as that lock is not
 > used in an interrupt context.

Oh, duh, yes, you are correct.  My brain was not fully engaged :-)

-- 
        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>