On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 11:49, John Johansen wrote: > sigh it seems I posted the wrong patch file the one that got posted is > the one where I threw up my hands and swore about having to break the > lock as Stephan suggests. > > The actual patch adds an extra lock (I liked that a little better than > breaking the rq lock) in setscheduler and around the other points that > call __setschedule. Not sure I understand - can you post the correct patch? -- Stephen Smalley <sds@private> National Security Agency
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Oct 20 2004 - 09:05:14 PDT