Take 2 based on semaphore -)
Jan-Simon Pendry wrote:
> holding a spin lock across a (potential) sleep is a bug - it can
> lead to deadlock.
>
> jan-simon.
>
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:38:11AM -0400, Yong Chi wrote:
> > > Hopefully this will do for SMP locks. =)
>
holding a spin lock across a (potential) sleep is a bug - it can
lead to deadlock.
jan-simon.
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:38:11AM -0400, Yong Chi wrote:
> > Hopefully this will do for SMP locks. =)
>
> Holding a spinlock for this long (especially when you might sleep t
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 11:38:11AM -0400, Yong Chi wrote:
> Hopefully this will do for SMP locks. =)
Holding a spinlock for this long (especially when you might sleep there in two
places (interruptible_sleep_on, put_user)) is basically a bad idea.
spinlocks are designed to be holded only for sho
Hopefully this will do for SMP locks. =)
Todo list also said that on UP, sleep_on() use is unsafe. It uses
"interruptible_sleep_on()" and "wake_up_interruptible()" calls. Are they
not safe on UP?
Thanks
--- ds.c.bakWed Oct 11 13:05:16 2000
+++ ds.cThu Oct 12 11:25:20 2000
@@ -9
4 matches
Mail list logo