Re: [PATCH] PHYLIB: IRQ event workqueue handling fixes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 06:03:20PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > Could you explain why cancel_work_sync() is better here than
> > flush_scheduled_work() wrt. rtnl_lock()?
>  Well, this is actually the bit that made cancel_work_sync() be written in 
> the first place.  The short story is the netlink lock is most probably 
> held at this point (depending on the usage of phy_disconnect()) and there 
> is also an event waiting in the queue that requires the lock, so if 
> flush_scheduled_work() is called here a deadlock will happen.
>  Let me find a reference for a longer story...:
> and then discussed again:

Yes, it's all right here. Sorry for bothering - I should've found this
by myself.

I've still some doubts about this possible enable_irq() after
free_irq(). If it's the only handler the status would be changed again
and at least some of this code in check_irq_resend() would be run, but
I can miss something again or/and this doesn't matter, as well.

Jarek P.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[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]
  Powered by Linux