On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 14:33 +0200, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Thursday 24 August 2006 13:04, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
> >
> >>Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>
> >>>Edward Falk <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Add spin_lock_string_flags and _raw_spin_lock_flags() to
> >>>>asm-x86_64/spinlock.h so that _spin_lock_irqsave() has the same
> >>>>semantics on x86_64 as it does on i386 and does *not* have interrupts
> >>>>disabled while it is waiting for the lock.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Did it fix anything for you?
> >>
> >>I think this was to work around the fact that some buggy drivers try to
> >>grab spinlocks without disabling interrupts when they should, which
> >>would cause deadlocks when trying to rendez-vous every cpu via IPIs.
> >
> >
> > That doesn't help them at all because they could then deadlock later.
>
> If the driver uses spin_lock() when it knows that the hardware won't
> generate the interrupt that would need to be masked, and
> spin_lock_irqsave() elsewhere, there shouldn't be any deadlocks unless
> IPIs are involved.
this still is bad practice and lockdep will also scream about it
Can you point at ANY place that does this?
-
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]
