On 5/6/07, Alan Stern <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Anyway, the hci_notifier is called from the following six call sites:
>
> hci_dev_open() and hci_dev_close() -> both called from
> hci_sock_ioctl() => both can sleep
> hci_register_dev() and hci_unregister_dev() => again both are capable
> of sleeping
> hci_suspend_dev() and hci_resume_dev() -> called from the .suspend()
> and .resume() of the hci_usb_driver, and again both of these can sleep
>
> Is there any other reason why hci_notifier must be an atomic notifier?
>
> (CC'ing Alan Stern just in case, apparently hci_notifier became atomic
> when notifier chains were classified into atomic / blocking)
I don't remember exactly why this particular choice was made. Perhaps we
found that the notifier callout routines didn't use any blocking
primitives (we may have been mistaken about this -- there was a lot of
code to check) and so therefore the choice didn't matter. In that case we
probably just decided to make it an atomic notifier to keep things simple.
As you found, changing it to a blocking notifier is very easy. Provided
all the callers are non-atomic it should work just fine.
Okay, I'll go ahead and try the patch, then, and report back.
Thanks,
Ray
-
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]
