> On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 07:04:06PM +0200, Anders Magnusson wrote:
> 
>  > If the master CPU is spinning on a lock that is not taken by a 
>  > __cpu_simple_lock(), then it will be handled by the SPINLOCK_SPIN_HOOK.
>  > But you're right, if there is a printf inside another spinlock
>  > then the same problem rises. That is a good reason to just do the check
>  > inside __cpu_simple_lock(), and everything would be fine.
> 
> Not quite true, unfortunately -- SPINLOCK_SPIN_HOOK is used only for
> lockmgr() spin locks -- simple_lock() is not affected by it.
> 
Eh, wasn't that what I wrote? That was what I meant anyway, I hope my 
english isn't that bad :-)

-- Ragge