Re: files_lock deadlock?

> I noticed that files_lock is only protected with spin_lock() (file_list_lock(),
> include/linux/fs.h). Is it possible that this should be changed to
> spin_lock_irq()) or spin_lock_irqsave()? Or am I misssing something obvious?

I'm probably stabbing in the dark, but I've seen ipt_owner of netfilter to 
talk about spin_lock_bh() wrt. files->file_lock.


Jan Engelhardt
-- 
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: files_lock deadlock?
    • From: Martin Wilck <[email protected]>

• References:
  • files_lock deadlock?
    • From: Martin Wilck <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: assignment of major number to serial driver -2.6.x kernels
• Next by Date: Re: Noob question. Why is the for-pentium4 kernel built with -march=i686 ?
• Previous by thread: files_lock deadlock?
• Next by thread: Re: files_lock deadlock?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]