On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:49:56 -0400 "Dmitry Torokhov" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/19/07, Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote: > > PS to previous -- any problem with inserting rcu_read_lock() and > > rcu_read_unlock() around the portion of the IRQ handler that has > > these accesses? > > > > I guess I could but it is an extra lock that needs to be managed and > given the fact that it is not really needed (other to make a newly > developed tool happy) I am hestsant to do that. As is, these sites are a bug in -rt and we'll need to fix them anyway. As for the code you pointed me to, the i8042 driver, it seems to play way to funny tricks for a simple 'slow' driver. If you replace the spin_lock() + sync_sched(), with rcu_read_lock() + rcu_call() it should work again without adding an extra lock. - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
- From: "Dmitry Torokhov" <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
- References:
- [RFC][PATCH 0/6] using lockdep to validate rcu usage
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
- From: "Dmitry Torokhov" <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
- From: "Dmitry Torokhov" <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
- From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
- From: "Dmitry Torokhov" <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
- From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
- From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
- From: "Dmitry Torokhov" <[email protected]>
- [RFC][PATCH 0/6] using lockdep to validate rcu usage
- Prev by Date: Re: [Announce] Linux-tiny project revival
- Next by Date: Re: CFS: some bad numbers with Java/database threading [FIXED]
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()
- Index(es):
 |