On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 08:54:37PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Meanwhile, the whole content of the new free_winch(), including some syscalls
> on the host, and various other stuff, is brought back under the
> winch_handler_lock.
And? There's no particular problem with host system calls being under
a lock. And the various other stuff is a kfree and a free_irq, which
I don't think have a problem being called under a spinlock.
> I had carefully brought that stuff out keeping only the list access under the
> lock, probably while fixing some "scheduling while atomic" warnings - once
> the element is out of the list it's unreachable thus (IMHO) safely
> accessible.
Probably? What in there is sensitive to being called under a lock?
> So, list_del should be brought out from free_winch, which would then become
> callable without the spinlock held.
That would increase the amount of code, with no gain that I can see.
The list_del would be duplicated, and the loop in winch_cleanup would
have to drop and reacquire the lock around each call to free_winch.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
