> > I guess another way of dealing with this kind of problem is to use a
> > semaphore rather than a spinlock, and a workqueue: when the interrupt
> > comes in, the call to snd_ctl_notify is put on the queue, where it will
> > later be run in process context, and can safely take the semaphore.
>
>
At Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:21:41 +0100,
Duncan Sands wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 03 December 2002 19:34, Paul Davis wrote:
> > >I guess another way of dealing with this kind of problem is to use a
> > >semaphore rather than a spinlock, and a workqueue: when the interrupt
> > >comes in, the call to snd_ctl_no
On Tuesday 03 December 2002 19:34, Paul Davis wrote:
> >I guess another way of dealing with this kind of problem is to use a
> >semaphore rather than a spinlock, and a workqueue: when the interrupt
> >comes in, the call to snd_ctl_notify is put on the queue, where it will
> > later be run in proces
>I guess another way of dealing with this kind of problem is to use a
>semaphore rather than a spinlock, and a workqueue: when the interrupt
>comes in, the call to snd_ctl_notify is put on the queue, where it will later
>be run in process context, and can safely take the semaphore.
can i get a poi
> yes, basically what snd_ctl_notify() does is the same.
> it queues an event and wakes up the sleepers.
> thus, it's ok to separate the stuff from the semaphore.
>
> the attached is a patch to rewrite the locks with rwsem.
> please check whether it works for you.
This is against alsa cvs and not
At Tue, 3 Dec 2002 06:57:45 +0100,
Duncan Sands wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 03 December 2002 14:56, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Tue, 3 Dec 2002 04:55:15 +0100,
> >
> > Duncan Sands wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 03 December 2002 13:01, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > At Tue, 3 Dec 2002 04:07:52 +0100,
> > > >
> > >
On Tuesday 03 December 2002 14:56, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Tue, 3 Dec 2002 04:55:15 +0100,
>
> Duncan Sands wrote:
> > On Tuesday 03 December 2002 13:01, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > At Tue, 3 Dec 2002 04:07:52 +0100,
> > >
> > > Duncan Sands wrote:
> > > > Got this with today 2.5 BK tree:
> > > >
>
At Tue, 3 Dec 2002 04:55:15 +0100,
Duncan Sands wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 03 December 2002 13:01, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Tue, 3 Dec 2002 04:07:52 +0100,
> >
> > Duncan Sands wrote:
> > > Got this with today 2.5 BK tree:
> > >
> > > Debug: sleeping function called from illegal context at
> > > incl
On Tuesday 03 December 2002 13:01, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Tue, 3 Dec 2002 04:07:52 +0100,
>
> Duncan Sands wrote:
> > Got this with today 2.5 BK tree:
> >
> > Debug: sleeping function called from illegal context at
> > include/asm/semaphore.h:119 Call Trace:
> > [] __might_sleep+0x52/0x58
> > [
At Tue, 3 Dec 2002 04:07:52 +0100,
Duncan Sands wrote:
>
> Got this with today 2.5 BK tree:
>
> Debug: sleeping function called from illegal context at include/asm/semaphore.h:119
> Call Trace:
> [] __might_sleep+0x52/0x58
> [] snd_cs46xx_iec958_put+0x36/0xf8
> [] snd_ctl_elem_write+0xe0/0x1a4
Got this with today 2.5 BK tree:
Debug: sleeping function called from illegal context at include/asm/semaphore.h:119
Call Trace:
[] __might_sleep+0x52/0x58
[] snd_cs46xx_iec958_put+0x36/0xf8
[] snd_ctl_elem_write+0xe0/0x1a4
[] snd_ctl_ioctl+0x184/0x2c8
[] sys_ioctl+0x1fa/0x244
[] syscall_cal
11 matches
Mail list logo
