Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys
To: David Laight <email@example.com>
From: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/04/2003 16:48:32
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 04:26 PM, David Laight wrote:
> Actually any process using RASes just need all its LWPs bound to the
> physical cpu. Also making the lock redundant!
> One might think that there ought to be an splhi() call to protect the
> updates - since the list is only ever searched during an ISR - but even
Uh, the list should never be searched during an ISR. The list should
only be searched when an LWP of a process that has RAS's enabled is
switched to. There should be no need for spl protection of the RAS
list at all.
-- Jason R. Thorpe <email@example.com>