The notion of releasing a spin lock by initializing it seems IMHO, on
the face of it, way off. Firstly the protected area is no longer
protected which could lead to undefined errors/ crashes and secondly,
any future use of spinlocks to control preemption could have a lot of
trouble with this, principally because the locker is unknown.
In the case at hand, it would seem that an unlocked path to the console
is a more correct answer that gives the system a far better chance of
actually remaining viable.
George
Keith Owens wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:32:49 -0500,
> John Kacur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >When attempting to compile test11-pre2, I get the following compile
> >error.
> >
> >arch/i386/mm/mm.o: In function `do_page_fault':
> >arch/i386/mm/mm.o(.text+0x781): undefined reference to `bust_spinlocks'
> >make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1
>
> Oops, wrong patch.
>
> Index: 0-test11-pre2.1/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c
> --- 0-test11-pre2.1/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:10:37 +1100 kaos
>(linux-2.4/A/c/1_traps.c 1.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.2.3.1.2.3.1.1.2 644)
> +++ 0-test11-pre2.1(w)/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:06:48 +1100 kaos
>(linux-2.4/A/c/1_traps.c 1.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.2.3.1.2.3.1.1.2 644)
> @@ -382,6 +382,18 @@ static void unknown_nmi_error(unsigned c
> printk("Do you have a strange power saving mode enabled?\n");
> }
>
> +extern spinlock_t console_lock, timerlist_lock;
> +/*
> + * Unlock any spinlocks which will prevent us from getting the
> + * message out (timerlist_lock is acquired through the
> + * console unblank code)
> + */
> +void bust_spinlocks(void)
> +{
> + spin_lock_init(&console_lock);
> + spin_lock_init(&timerlist_lock);
> +}
> +
> #if CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC
>
> int nmi_watchdog = 1;
> @@ -394,19 +406,7 @@ static int __init setup_nmi_watchdog(cha
>
> __setup("nmi_watchdog=", setup_nmi_watchdog);
>
> -extern spinlock_t console_lock, timerlist_lock;
> static spinlock_t nmi_print_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
> -
> -/*
> - * Unlock any spinlocks which will prevent us from getting the
> - * message out (timerlist_lock is aquired through the
> - * console unblank code)
> - */
> -void bust_spinlocks(void)
> -{
> - spin_lock_init(&console_lock);
> - spin_lock_init(&timerlist_lock);
> -}
>
> inline void nmi_watchdog_tick(struct pt_regs * regs)
> {
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
