On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 17:43:36 +0100
Russell King <[email protected]> wrote:
| In the uart_update_mctrl() case, the purpose of the locking is to
| prevent two concurrent changes to the modem control state resulting
| in an inconsistency between the hardware and the software state. If
| it's provable that it is always called from process context (and
| it isn't called from a lock_kernel()-section or the lock_kernel()
| section doesn't mind a rescheduling point being introduced there),
| there's no problem converting that to a mutex.
Ok, then I can submit my debug patch to answer these questions.
might_sleep() can catch the lock_kernel()-section case right?
| With get_mctrl(), the situation is slightly more complicated, because
| we need to atomically update tty->hw_stopped in some circumstances
| (that may also be modified from irq context.) Therefore, to give
| the driver a consistent locking picture, the spinlock is _always_
| held.
Is it too bad (wrong?) to only protect the tty->hw_stopped update
by the spinlock? Then the call to get_mctrl() could be protected by
a mutex, or is it messy?
--
Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
-
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]
