Alan Stern <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The calls to register_cpu_notifier are harder. That chain really does
> need to be blocking
Why?
> which means we can't avoid calling down_write. The
> only solution I can think of is to use down_write_trylock in the
> blocking_notifier_chain_register and unregister routines, even though
> doing that is a crock.
>
> Or else change __down_read and __down_write to use spin_lock_irqsave
> instead of spin_lock_irq. What do you think would be best?
Nothing's pretty. Perhaps look at system_state and not do any locking at all
in early boot?
> > I'd suggest that in further development, you enable might_sleep() in early
> > boot - that would have caught such things..
>
> Not a bad idea. I presume that removing the "system_state ==
> SYSTEM_RUNNING" test in __might_sleep will have that effect?
Yup.
-
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]
