* Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ->disconnect_pending is used without any locks/barriers, perhaps
> > > this is the reason.
>
> I misread cinergyt2_release, it checks !->disconnect_pending, so it is
> very clear why cinergyt2_query_rc() tries to take the mutex.
>
> > > I'll try to look further tomorrow. In any case, cinergyT2 should not
> > > use flush_scheduled_work() at all.
> >
> > would the hack below be worth trying, to see whether there are any
> > further problems?
[...]
> I don't think we can just kill flush_scheduled_work(). We can use
> cancel_rearming_delayed_work() instead of
> cancel_delayed_work()+flush_scheduled_work()
>
> Still we can't do this under cinergyt2->sem, because cinergyt2_query()
> takes it too. This all looks very wrong to me, I hope maintaners can
> explain.
i've Cc:-ed the maintainers.
Ingo
-
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/
