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 
> same
> 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 <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>