On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Montag 23 Juli 2007 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > Now here's an idea which might work. Can we require every caller of
> > device_add() to hold some existing device's semaphore? Normally it
> > would be the semaphore of the new device's parent, but it could be a
> > higher ancestor. There even could be a single "root" semaphore for
> > drivers registering a top-level device with no parent.
>
> What prevents us from having a device addition semaphore?
> Adding device is not critical to performance, is it?
It would create a locking order violation. Many drivers hold a device
semaphore while registering a child device, so they would acquire your
new semaphore while holding a device sem. But the PM core needs to
prevent registration while calling suspend() methods, so it would need
to acquire the device sems while holding your new semaphore.
Alan Stern
-
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]
