On Sat, 2007-12-22 at 23:37 -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:01:50 -0800, Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Then in usu_probe_thread() your basically stopping it at the start of > > the function with a down(), and the up() is just ancillary .. So you > > could easily move the up() further down in the function and still have > > the same level of exclusion.. > > The unfortunate complication here is request_module. I didn't want to > keep a semaphore locked across it, in case child waits for something. > I wonder if there may be some deadlock that we cannot foresee. > But I guess it won't hurt to try.
I noticed you also have a spinlock held in usu_probe_thread(), the usu_lock.. That spinlock would preclude anything inside request_module() from sleeping.. One thing that has bothered me is that I don't see a reason why this couldn't become a complete, yet you have a comment which says that it can't be a complete.. I honestly didn't understand the comment.. I would imagine that you tried a complete , and it didn't work? > I tested the patch and it seems to work ok. Great, thanks .. Daniel -- 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/