* Michal Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, I'm going to contact upstream about this. However, after closer
> look on cpufreq code I came to a conclusion that the lock there
> doesn't really play the role of a completion. There's always: down(),
> then do something with the data structure, then up() in the same
> function. I'm going to fix it differently after consulting with
> upstream author (I now think that it should not be necessary to take
> the lock in cpufreq_add_dev at all).
yeah. It would lead to incorrect code to use a completion if the purpose
is a real lock. The main non-PREEMPT_RT-compatible use of semaphores is
the unlocking of a semaphore the task did not lock itself. It is correct
Linux code, so that alone is not a good reason to change upstream (and
upstream doesnt and shouldnt bother about PREEMPT_RT at this point) -
but if the underlying code is not entirely clean and the cross-owner-use
of locks is not justified it might be possible to solve this via a
cleanup.
Ingo
-
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]
