On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Lal <learner.ker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is below code race free?
>
> void process_context_function(void)
> {
> /* interrupts enabled here */
> spin_lock(&lock);
> modify_critical_section_list();
> spin_unlock(&lock);
> }
>
> irqreturn_t a2091_intr (int irq, void *_instance)
> {
> if(spin_trylock(&lock)) {
> modify_critical_section_list();
> spin_unlock(&lock);
> }
> else {
> /* skip */
> }
>
> return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
>
>
> More specifically, can spin_lock & spin_trylock have race?
>
>
Hi Lal,
Looks like you have a critical section between process context and interrupt
context, right?
Then why not just use spin_lock_irq () ? You will not need trylock in that
case.
Here is the similar discussion where your approach is discussed,
http://www.geeksofpune.in/drupal/?q=node/75
>From comments, looks like it is not correct to use trylock on UP.
Please refer famous article here,
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/kernel-locking/c214.html#MINIMUM-LOCK-REQIREMENTS
-Vinit
> Regards
> Lal
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with
> "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecar...@nl.linux.org
> Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
>
>
