Philippe Gerum wrote: > On Sun, 2006-12-03 at 15:13 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I came across a few things in latest 2.6.19-i386-1.6-01 patch: >> >> The usage of __ipipe_pipelock in __ipipe_common_info_proc is broken (raw >> lock used as >> Linux lock here), and I do not see any volatile data it could protect >> anyway. So let's >> remove it. > > The interrupt status word, and whether any virtual interrupt is > allocated or not, are the volatile data protected by this lock on a SMP > system. Since this is a common spinlock with no interrupt control > required which is only used over the Linux domain (/proc handler), you > don't need to go for the _hw() form of it.
As far as I see, nothing prevents the other users of __ipipe_pipelock to be executed over non-root domain (IRQ registration in Xenomai context is allowed, no?). But I have to re-check what data for __ipipe_common_info_proc actually can be released (I'm not considering inconsistency a problem here). I didn't see anything on first review. Still, this kind of merging of _hw with non-_hw spinlock operations is fishy in my eyes. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Adeos-main mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/adeos-main
