On 01/03/2013 12:42:09 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 22.12.2012, at 03:15, Scott Wood wrote:
> Previously the code relied on the queue's "next" field getting
> set to -1 sometime between an update to the bitmap, and the next
> call to IRQ_get_next. Sometimes this happened after the update.
> So
On 22.12.2012, at 03:15, Scott Wood wrote:
> Previously the code relied on the queue's "next" field getting
> set to -1 sometime between an update to the bitmap, and the next
> call to IRQ_get_next. Sometimes this happened after the update.
> Sometimes it happened before the check. Sometimes it
Previously the code relied on the queue's "next" field getting
set to -1 sometime between an update to the bitmap, and the next
call to IRQ_get_next. Sometimes this happened after the update.
Sometimes it happened before the check. Sometimes it didn't happen
at all.
Signed-off-by: Scott Wood
--